ABC To Offer Full Shows Online

vitaly.friedman writes to mention an Ars Technica story on the ABC's newest bid to stay relevant in the Information Age. As of the end of this month the network will be airing certain popular television shows on the ABC website, starting the morning after their first broadcast. From the article: "All programs will be shown in their entirety, including commercials which cannot be avoided. That's a smart move on ABC's part, as it ensures that advertisers will get another shot at hawking their wares to an audience that might otherwise change channels during commercial breaks or fast-forward through them if recorded. Aside from being unable to avoid commercials, watching the programs will be similar to watching timeshifted content in that viewers will be able to pause, fast forward, and rewind."

Comments

Available the day after?

[RunFatBoy.net]

If ABC is really looking to make a splash, maybe they should offer some of these episodes the day *before* they air. Given how quickly buzz becomes stale after the fact, people would jump at a chance to get a preview of their favorite show.

Jim http://www.runfatboy.net/ -- A workout plan that doesn't feel like homework.

Re:Available the day after?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, most people with Tivo skip the ads when it's broadcast.

If I were an advertiser I'd want people to watch it through technology that makes it harder to avoid the ads (which it seems this web-broadcast will).

Re:Available the day after?

[Daniel_Staal]

This way more people are likely to watch it twice.

Also, this way they aren't stepping on revenue streams for their local affliates. (Who may be able to show some local ads during the regular broadcast. Or at least share revenue.)

What you are talking about is a whole different business model. It could well work, but I wouldn't want to give up a currently working business model to try it.

Re:Available the day after?

[Esion Modnar]

maybe they should offer some of these episodes the day *before* they air

I have seen this being done with some regular shows (such as "Thief") as a PPV event, 2 or 3 days before the normal airing time. Can't say there is any show I'm that anxious to see that I would actually pay money to see it early. Maybe some TF'ers would.

Re:Available the day after?

[garcia]

They are doing it for "Black. White." -- showing it on DirecTV PPV three days ahead of the actual showing. Personally I think that it was a poor show choice to try this model on because the contect of "Black. White." (IMHO) sucks.

They should have done it with Rescue Me or Nip/Tuck. Even Thief, being new, doesn't have the viewership to warrant a test like that. On a personal note, I'm trying to like Thief, I really am -- but it's too much drama and not enough action.

Re:Available the day after?

[suv4x4]

"maybe they should offer some of these episodes the day *before* they air. "

Offer it a finger & it'll eat your hand.

Re:Available the day after?

[DaoudaW]

What you are talking about is a whole different business model.

How is this a whole new business model? Sounds like the same old same old to me...

Now I'll admit I'm not much of a TV watcher anyway, but I'm not particularly interested in web-content that turns my PC into a small, lo-res television complete with 16 minutes of ads per hour. What's new about that???

What would be cool is if the site remembers exactly where I was when I last watched. Dynamically generate a short recap of my last session to remind me of the highlights of what I last watched. Allow me to link to excerpts from previous episodes when they're alluded to. Maybe even have a writer's forum where they can go deeper into background and get feedback from the audience as the show unfolds.

Just using TCP/IP instead of cable or radio waves doesn't begin to constitute a new business model.

Re:Available the day after?

[Daniel_Staal]

Downloading for free over the internet (even with commercials) is a different business model then offering via local affliates over television. If you release the episiode first on the internet you are relying on that as the business model, and the TV is just an added bonus. If they found they couldn't make money doing it, but that people switched to watching it that way instead of via their old business model it would at the very least kill the show.

This way they can test to see if they can actually make money this way without any worries about it eating into their old revenue stream. (Or, at least not eating into it much.)

The reason it is a different business model is because there is a different cost structure: The studio is having to pay more of the distrobution and advertising recruitment costs. This is also on-demand instead of push. The end result is that they don't actually know until they try it how much it is going to cost to distribute. Now, they also get all the revenue directly, but exactly how that effect the profits is unclear.

It's on-demand instead of push, it's centralized instead of distributed, it's in a format that is closer to editable (and easier to share). The fact that it's TCP/IP instead of cable/satelite is irrelevent. The behind the scenes differences are substantial.

Re:Available the day after?

[TheRaven64]

I live in the UK, so I am used to about half as many adverts as you (a 42 minute program takes 42 minutes on the BBC, 50-55 minutes on the other channels and 60 minutes in the USA). Last year, I pretty much stopped watching broadcast TV because there were too many adverts. There are many other forms of entertainment where I don't have to waste 20% of the time watching advertisements, and so TV could not compete. The only series I watch are those which are released for rental on DVD (I have a subscription to a NetFlix-like service).

If any TV provider wants to re-gain my custom, then they will have to provide an ad-free delivery system. I don't mind paying for what I watch (although I do prefer a fixed fee, watch whatever you like system), but I do object to wasting my time.

Re:Available the day after?

[TheoMurpse]

Yes, in this case it does. Current business model:
1) WABC-TV creates content (or other producer licenses/sells content to them)
2) affiliate stations also air content (flagship and affiliate stations have a tradeoff because affiliates get good content, and flagship gets more eyeballs for their commercials, and affiliates may air some local commercials for revenue)
3) affiliate stations get max viewership since it's lame to be the guy at the watercooler the next day who didn't watch the show, and so does source station (WABC-TV in New York)
4) show goes on the internet for a little extra viewership (ie those who didn't see it on TV the night before, or who want to watch it again), and only the flagship gets a benefit here

Your proposed model:
1) create content
2) flagship airs content online, and anyone who wants to watch it can (note that affiliates get no benefit here)
3) affiliates air content, and fewer people watch (and thus have less incentive to be affiliates, and can't charge as much for local ads as well, thus losing revenue)

To sum up:
proposed model: affiliates (your local stations) get less money, and thus perhaps cannot report the local news as well, nor produce local entertainment nor sponsor local NPOs, etc.
current model: wholly different

I'm not trying to endorse one model over the other; I just want to demonstrate that they are, indeed, different business models. One harms the local stations.

Re:Available the day after?

[slashname3]

I built a mythtv system over a year ago and have rarely watched live tv since. The commercial skip feature on mythtv works pretty well. :)

As to the article, if they allow you to "fast forward" doesn't that let you avoid most of the commercials? Or have they figured out how to block the fast forward when a commercial is playing?

Re:Available the day after?

[jma05]

Er.. The article says just the opposite. Skimmed for a few words, did you? :-)

"All programs will be shown in their entirety, including commercials which cannot be avoided. That's a smart move on ABC's part, as it ensures that advertisers will get another shot at hawking their wares to an audience that might otherwise change channels during commercial breaks or fast-forward through them if recorded. Aside from being unable to avoid commercials, watching the programs will be similar to watching timeshifted content in that viewers will be able to pause, fast forward, and rewind."

Re:Available the day after?

[slashname3]

I read the same section you quoted. And I ask again, doesn't the fast forward option allow you to skip most commercials? The section you quoted says commecials can not be avoided. So which is it?

Re:Available the day after?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could always, oh, I don't know, do some IP address sniffing or ask people what their preferred station is, or only allow people to watch a show from their local station's website? Otherwise, the ad revenue could be shared with the local affiliates, using a ratio determined by their performance on non-internet broadcast shows.

Re:Available the day after?

[assassinator42]

That's what Adult Swim does. Several days before, actually. And no ads within the streams. I don't watch too much Adult Swim, so I usually just catch Boondocks and Robot Chicken on the site, not watching it when it's on TV. Somehow, I don't think that's what they were going for.

Re:Available the day after?

[Hoch]

If it is done similar to other trash online, the comercials will be seperate streams, set in between segments of show. No doubt they will have fast forwarding disabled. ABC seems to be very reactionary in this move, but none the less some "journalist" copied their press release as news. Or they were in a cave for the previous months.

Re:Available the day after?

[Fordiman]

On a related note, by 'relevant', does ABC mean 'just barely afloat' or 'in the process of sinking into obscelescence'?

Just asking 'cos, ah... offering low res content with embedded adverts (which, given the model by which they'd have to deliver these non-skippable ads, also prevent you from rewinding past them to catch what you missed before the commercial) doesn't seem all that 'relevant' to me, by its classical definition.

By the way, if you want a way to avoid ads from asx files, just study up a bit on the use of the Java proxy, Muffin. It's got a customizable filter powerful enough to let you say, "In files of mimetype video/asx (I don't actually know the mimetype), change all occurences of the parameter 'skippable' to 'true'", or something of that nature.

The asx file is the control, and the skip protection is only secured by obscurity. Don't let them fool you.

Re:Available the day after?

[Duds]

It's been done that way by both the BBC and Channel 4 in the UK, usually with episodes of comedy shows. The key here though is that both channels don't have affiliates. Both have gone as well as the entire week early (i.e - episode 2 online after episode 1 airs)

Re:Available the day after?

[Anonymous Coward]

Americans get 4 sets of adverts whereas the British get 3 sets of adverts, the difference lies in the fact that our advert set last a little bit longer, but in general the total amount of time wasted on adverts during a show is basically the same for both sets of viewers. A show in the US is not 60 mins, they are usually 55/58 mins so roughly the same time taken up for the UK showing.

An added benefit for Americans is that they get to view the original version of the tv show; the British have to watch a censored version, that has some scenes cut from what was intended to be shown - this really annoys me.

Perhaps by allowing viewers to subscribe to their favorite broadcasters like FOX or ABC, and allowing them to view tv shows directly to their tv via the internet then we could bypass all this nonsense. Hell I'd be willing to go for a 'premier' account to reduce/eliminate the amount of censorship and adverts I have to put up with.

- drake

Re:Available the day after?

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't sound like you have ever watched American TV, from the crap you spout above. 4 ad breaks an hour? Good God, they have ad breaks before AND after the end credits. 58 minute shows? On HBO, maybe. Everything else you're talking less than 45.
And I just knew you had to be taking the piss when you talked about British TV being a worse censor than the US networks.

Re:Available the day after?

[cluke]

Yeah, but it's pretty much all their shitty BBC3 stuff they are desperately trying to gain a bit of mindshare for. You wouldn't see them put any of their flagship programs up for download.
Not yet, anyway.

Re:Available the day after?

[jekewa]

I'm not using a stop-watch, but most hour-long TV shows in the US contain about 40-45 minutes of content when you block out the four two-to-five-minute long commercial breaks and the opening and end credits. Sometimes less if you skip the "previously" teasers. Looking quick at Wikipedia, and the article article seems to agree with my watch-less estimates.

We DVR all television that we want to watch and burn through a three-hour set of shows in about half that long, including rewinds for over-fast-forwarding over commercials and titles. The only "shows" we watch "live" are sporting events and the news, if we bother, 'cause you'd know the outcome the next day anyway if you bothered to DVR them.

Re:Available the day after?

[Duds]

Indeed, to be fair you can stream the Ten O'clock news live too.

Re:Available the day after?

[Anonymous Coward]

"...then they will have to provide an ad-free delivery system. I don't mind paying for what I watch..."

Except that in the current business model you're not actually paying for what you watch ... you're paying your cable or satelite provider to send you a broadcast signal ... the advertisers are paying for the programming. Television technology was adopted by advertisers to sell us stuff, not because someone wants to entertain or educate you.

Re:Available the day after?

[TheRaven64]

As I said in the last post, I live in the UK. As such, I pay a modest license fee to the BBC each year, which funds the development of some very high quality material, which is broadcast ad-free. Since I cancelled my cable subscription, and stopped watching ad-supported TV, this is the only money from me to the TV industry.

Cannot?

[the linux geek]

What exactly does "Cannot be avoided" mean? do they actually think they can prevent people from skipping the commercials?

Re:Cannot?

[Anonymous Coward]

They tie you to the chair and wire your eyelids open.

After all the customer is always right, and with all media (google included) you have to remember that the advertiser is the customer t and you the viewer is the product being sold.

Re:Cannot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Disabling the ability to skip ahead. My guess is you only get Play, Stop, and maybe Pause. No fast forward or rewind ability, enforced by DRM on the player.

Re:Cannot?

[Mr. Jaggers]

Any insiders feel like anonymously leaking the particular mechanism? The real story here, I think, is what sort of DRM mechanism they'll use to control playback, and consequently, ex post facto removal of commercials.

I'm assuming there will have to be some cryptographic mechanism that junks the bitstream after the place the edit takes place.

Re:Cannot?

[Zendar]

What exactly does "Cannot be avoided" mean? do they actually think they can prevent people from skipping the commercials?

That's what I'd like to know! The article doesn't state the technology used to view the programs. My guess is it's embedded Windows Media. Maybe they allow you to fast forward through the program, but when the commercials air, you cann ff/rw? Most news Web sites that offer video content make you watch a 30s spot that you cannot ff though. Then the "free" video airs.

I wonder if the commercials will change too? What about regional ads that most affiliates show?

Re:Cannot?

[AKAImBatman]

No fast forward or rewind ability, enforced by DRM on the player.

More likely, enforced by the fact that you're streaming the data. While most video programs try to read ahead, the buffer likely wouldn't be more than enough to miss a single commercial.

Re:Cannot?

[Zendar]

... that should be: "but when the commercials air, you cannot ff/rw?"

My bad.

Re:Cannot?

[badasscat]

What exactly does "Cannot be avoided" mean? do they actually think they can prevent people from skipping the commercials?

Um, yes?

It's very easy. Encode the video in Flash and do a php call so the file name is never revealed - not even the url to the directory where the file *is* is revealed. Can't be downloaded (even by workaround methods), and controls can be set in the embedded player so you can't fast-forward (my guess is the last part of the article submission is wrong - you can maybe rewind and then ff to the last point you were at in the video, but you won't be able to skip ahead).

The big video sites don't do this right now, but it is possible, and a lot of smaller sites do do it. We'll see if ABC is smart enough, but judging by the way they describe this, it sounds like they've figured it out.

I've been saying TV stations should do this exact thing for years. You want to stop "piracy" of your shows? Put them online for free. Show the ads; we know you've gotta make money. But don't force me to pay 2 bucks just because I wasn't home at the time the show was on and presumably don't have (or can't afford?) TiVo.

Now you've got a choice, at least with the bigger shows. Pay 2 bucks and watch them ad-free, or pay nothing and watch with ads. Pretty much the way it should be, if you ask me.

The only question left is what sort of quality we'll get. I mean considering HDTV is free, then ideally the online version should match that quality - but no way it will for reasons of bandwidth. Hopefully it'll at least match what you can find on file sharing sites, though... if they really are serious about doing away with that sort of thing, especially.

Re:Cannot?

[JonTurner]

Consider too that failing to watch every minute of every commercial means you're "stealing" content. Jack Valenti said so. That's the mindset of the studios -- they, not you, are in charge and you will obey. Can't you almost hear them muttering "damn customers" under their breath?

Re:Cannot?

[LouisZepher]

It means there are hypnotic signals in the program that command you not to get up to use the lavatory or get snacks during commercials...

Re:Cannot?

[Dutchmaan]

They tie you to the chair and wire your eyelids open.

Remember you're under an NDA!

Re:Cannot?

[kfg]

What exactly does "Cannot be avoided" mean?

Your bathroom, fridge and microwave, each with their own ip, will autolock their doors whenever the commercials come on.

Oh, yeah, your fridge will also autoorder everything adverstised on your credit card, for "your convenience."

Welcome to the future, brother. Enjoy.

KFG

Re:Cannot?

[doughrama]

"Can't you almost hear them muttering "damn customers" under their breath?"

We, the consumers of TV, are not the customers. We are the product.

We are the product that gets sold to their real customers, the advertisers.

Re:Cannot?

[ScrewMaster]

Oddly, that vision of the future is remarkably similar to that portrayed in the old Max Headroom series, where it was a felony to install an "off" switch in a TV, and credit fraud was considered more heinous than murder.

Re:Cannot?

[M.C. Hampster]

Not a chance they'll use this method. You can still easily find where the file is located simply by sniffing your network traffic. Security through obscurity is not the way they'll go.

More than likely they'll simply use Windows Media with it's built in DRM protections. I don't believe anyone has broken the lastest DRM from Windows Media.

Re:Cannot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it was a VP from the TNT network who said that, not Valenti. Though he probrably believes it.

Re:Cannot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, keep in mind that there are sites like this one:

http://keepvid.com/

Devoted to helping people extract the video feeds from these sites. It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for automated extraction tools to become usable with these streams.

Re:Cannot?

[thrillseeker]

The only question left is what sort of quality we'll get. I mean considering HDTV is free, then ideally the online version should match that quality - but no way it will for reasons of bandwidth. Hopefully it'll at least match what you can find on file sharing sites

Hell, just put up a torrent and leave the commercials in. Most people will just download and watch the thing and then delete it. They'll pay no more and no less attention to commercials than they already do. Why make it so damn hard on people to watch a friggin TV show?

Re:Cannot?

[M.C. Hampster]

Well, I already see that I am wrong. They are using Flash for the video :-)

I guess we'll see how they go about locking the content. I don't know anything about the DRM features of Flash 8 video.

Re:Cannot?

[ichimunki]

Encode the video in Flash and do a php call so the file name is never revealed - not even the url to the directory where the file *is* is revealed.

How does this stop someone from using a proxy to capture the URL of the request? Even if the source of the stream is capable of being obscured... wouldn't a user simply be able to capture the video stream data at the client and modify it to his heart's content?

Re:Cannot?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Consider too that failing to watch every minute of every commercial means you're "stealing" content. Jack Valenti said so
Be that as it may, no one can honestly think that any network will, or should be expected to, offer their content ad free in the net. I think what ABC is doing is awesome....
I think the RIAA etc go overboard on some stuff, but this isn't an example of that.
Honestly- anyone who thinks that a network should produce a super expensive show and then give it away has no understanding of the world, money, or the economy... Maybe if the actors, set designers, gaffers etc worked for free they could give it away...
Do you work for a company? Would you stay in business very long if you gave your product away free? Don't expect a corner office any time soon my friend...

Re:Cannot?

[kfg]

The writers of Max Headroom and I grew up in a world where it was illegal to turn off your telephone bell (you did not own the phone, you leased it, and turning off the bell required opening the case and making a physical modification).

Plus la change, plus la meme chose, ay?

KFG

Re:Cannot?

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are Alex P Keaton at day, and at night turn into AKA Im Batman and touch yourself for hours on end with your corner office, eh? FAG!!!

Re:Cannot?

[timholman]

Hell, just put up a torrent and leave the commercials in. Most people will just download and watch the thing and then delete it. They'll pay no more and no less attention to commercials than they already do. Why make it so damn hard on people to watch a friggin TV show?

Exactly. 99% of the general public will always do what's most convenient, and will trade off money for convenience. People pay $1.99 for an iTunes TV show because it's convenient. Forget the fact that they could download it or record it themselves, then convert it to iPod format. For most folks, it's better to pay $1.99 and avoid that much effort.

If networks released torrents of shows at 320 x 240 pixel resolution with embedded commercials, the percentage of people who would bother to strip the commercials would be very small. Most people would simply go to the official network site, start the torrent download, watch the show, then delete it. Furthermore, a low res "free" version would not compete with a later DVD release to those who wanted a big screen version. If you're worried about people skipping commercials with fast forwarding, then put the show in some sort of proprietary format that requires a special player that won't permit it. Sure, it could be cracked, but 99% of the viewing public won't bother! They'll just download the player and watch (or ignore) the commercials just like they do when watching live TV.

Given the rumors of a video iPod with a larger screen, I could imagine a future where (a) 320 x 240 downloads with commercials were free, (b) 480 x 360 or 640 x 480 downloads without commercials cost $1.99 from iTunes, and (c) DVD and cable HDTV distribution stayed the way it is now.

Re:Cannot?

[Anonymous Coward]

If I'm a fagg, why were you giving me a blowjob earlier? Eat shit and die.

Re:Cannot?

[soft_guy]

They totally need to bring back Max Headroom!

Re:Cannot?

[vivek7006]

"Hell, just put up a torrent and leave the commercials in"

They will save on bandwidth and ads will be delivered to a wider audience. Everybody wins.

Re:Cannot?

[gstoddart]

Consider too that failing to watch every minute of every commercial means you're "stealing" content. Jack Valenti said so. That's the mindset of the studios -- they, not you, are in charge and you will obey.

Yeah, cause heaven forbid I should be allowed to go pee standing up while they're telling me about Kotex.

As a vegetarian I sure as shootin' should be forced to watch the McDonald's commercials in case I change my mind or something.

As a bachelor and someone who doesn't want kids, I should still watch the Pampers/Huggies debate so I can make an informed decision if it ever comes to that.

Surely even the goons like Valeri who think they own those minutes must realize that not all ads are relevant to all consumers. Those ads, I skip. The ones I've seen a bazillion times, I skip. I have to see your ad in fast speed just to skip by it, so I'm getting the advertising meme already.

However, that brilliant new set of VW commercials about "un-pimping your ride" are some of the best I've seen in years! I will occasionally stop and watch those puppies on regular speed. =)

Re:Cannot?

[Anonymous Coward]

"But don't force me to pay 2 bucks just because I wasn't home at the time the show was on and presumably don't have (or can't afford?) TiVo."

No one is forcing you to pay 2 bucks. You always have the choice of ... GHASP!!! ... not watching the show. Also, if you can't afford TiVo, there's still the good old VCR that works like a charm.

Re:Cannot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh yes "fa(double g)". Don't you wish you had a blow job. You aren't even a homosexual, being no one would touch your pimply festering skin. Put your AKA Im Batman Suit back on.

P.S. you're still a FAG!!!

Re:Cannot?

[Jherek Carnelian]

I don't believe anyone has broken the lastest DRM from Windows Media.

I have not checked recently, but I believe MS-DRM is cracked. It certainly was cracked and then MS forced an update out to all media-player software to work around that crack. But, a few months back, discussion on doom9.org was that even the last MS-DRM was easily cracked and the tools to extract DRM'd video were getting progressively more user-friendly too.

Re:Cannot?

[Elladan]

This is a good point, but I think you're failing to see the incredible horribleness of corporate video offerings from an ease of use standpoint.

For example, I won't even consider touching the video on commercial web sites (except google). Why? Well, it's not because I'm morally opposed to downloading a video from ABC or CNN. No... it's because their video always sucks to an unbelievable degree, to the point where watching it is a nightmare. Let's consider:

• Video is invariably hidden in some retarded web site which opens a window to try to force me to play the video in a thumbnail. Thus, I have to use firefox to tear their HTML apart to find a real link to the video. This is an extreme hassle - I hate having to debug other peoples' web sites just to use them.
• Must have Microsoft Winfuck XP SP3 XXX mega pr0n MAX version 10 to install the player. Therefore, there is no chance I will ever consider watching this video. Use a generic video format + player, or game over.
• Must install their software. BZZZT forget it. Too hard. Won't work. Will have a virus.
• Must watch the video live on the network. I used to work at a company that wrote software to do this. It never worked well. Still doesn't. If I can't download it first, forget it.
• Their software has a 100% chance of sucking. Case in point: Quicktime. My girlfriend has a Mac iBook with Quicktime on it. Does it suck? Yes, unbelievably so. The video is crappy and jittery, and the full screen button (get this) is greyed out and has a buy a non-crippled player ad next to it.
• I can't skip commercials? That means the player doesn't work right. Hello, fast-forward? This thing is inferior to a VCR from 1982. Forget it.

... etc. The point is, the reason Bittorrent is so incredibly popular isn't because people are so excited that they can get an episode of Lost without commercials for free. They could already do that -- VCRs are old hat. The great thing about Bittorrent is that it's incredibly convenient compared to any of these pile-of-garbage corporate offerings.

And that's the problem with this ABC thing. It, like all the garbage before it, sucks. The network that created the show is going to offer a vastly inferior experience, with more hassle, than some random guys using bittorrent.

If they wanted to do something innovative, and better, they would simply have placed MPEG4 files (or torrents to keep their costs down) on their web site, with the commercials. This would have been much cheaper and easier to develop for them, and would be a better experience for their users. But of course, they never will do this, because the industry is insane.

Re:Cannot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Flash can also be decompiled to get the url.

Re:Cannot?

[rpdillon]

You, sir, are my hero. I couldn't have summed up my discontent and frustration with the whole industry any more precisely or concisely.

Re:Cannot?

[HermanAB]

Hmm, like in Clockwork Orange, or the Vogon poetry appreciation chairs...

Re:Cannot?

[Basehart]

"Well, I already see that I am wrong. They are using Flash for the video :-)"

Yeah, and Steve Ballmer is kicking some sales guy in the Windows Media division to death right about now.

Re:Cannot?

[earthstar]

I have not checked recently, but I believe MS-DRM is cracked.

To my knowledge,I havent seena single place on the internet,that had cracked DRM [ The last time I checked-4 months back.].

And a search in http://www.doom9.org/ as you said ,didnt churn out anything positive.

Re:Cannot?

[dcam]

It's very easy. Encode the video in Flash and do a php call so the file name is never revealed - not even the url to the directory where the file *is* is revealed. Can't be downloaded (even by workaround methods), ...

Rubbish. This doesn't really change anything. Hiding the URL with the binary write in php doesn't secure the file any further, it just hides where it is stored on the server. You might do this to force people log in, or to limit who can have access to particular files, but once you have given them access to a particular file, there is nothing stopping them downloading it. ... and controls can be set in the embedded player so you can't fast-forward (my guess is the last part of the article submission is wrong - you can maybe rewind and then ff to the last point you were at in the video, but you won't be able to skip ahead).

Now this might acually slow people down (a little). Until someone reverse engineers the flash player and works how it streams the media.

Re:Cannot?

[name*censored*]

I completely agree with you. But if they WERE to release an .MP4 version complete with ads, people would skip the commercials. Hell, I even skip the introduction bit on my DVD rips (its ok, i own legit copies of said DVDs :P). I would DEFINITELY skip over the commercials if it were released in a non-crippled format. And if I skipped over the commercials (and thus underwrote their advertiser's power), they would have no reason to release their shows on the internet.

Granted, I normally go do something else in the adbreaks, so it's basically the same as skipping over the ads if I could, but TV companies are NEVER going to do anything to make viewers lives easier, especially if there's a worse (for us) option available.

Re:Cannot?

[James McGuigan]

Then only option would be to create adverts that people actually wanted to watch (and thus wouldn't skip), rather than ones people are forced to watch.

Re:Cannot?

[WalksOnDirt]

"They are using Flash for the video"

That sounds promising. I have a hard time watching WMF files if I can't download them, but Flash usually works. Now if only ABC had more shows that I actually wanted to watch...

Re:Cannot?

[aftermath09]

Totally agree with the parent.

Whenever you force the consumer to conform to YOUR way of using a product(no fast forwarding commercials, view it through one type of player) when they are used to another(just turn on the TV, or put in a DVD, watch a show on my pocket pc), it will be difficult to get adoption unless you offer incentives (ie. cheaper, easier). It doesn't sound incredibly cheaper, and it's definitely not more convenient.

Re:Cannot?

[mwilliamson]

Yes, there is a nearly 100% effective way of preventing the skipping of commercials. On the bittorrent networks, it actually results in the trading of the commercials, sometimes without the associated show. This technique is used in many of the more liberal European countries and is very simple. It requires no sophisticated playback software or restrictive DRM crap. It works on all playback technology. It even prevents getting up and leaving the room during commercials, or even just not paying attention to the commercials.

boobies

Re:Cannot?

[Elladan]

Yes, you're right of course - many people would skip the ads. But many people skip the ads anyway, by walking out of the room, fast-forwarding, muting them and chatting with their friends, or just ignoring them. The network can't force you to watch the ads -- all they can do is piss you off.

But they have this power mad mania with trying to impose their will on their customers, so the idea that you might be able to skip the ads just like you already could before is unacceptable to them, thus they won't even consider doing it.

Re:Cannot?

[Jherek Carnelian]

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid= 89243

No Commercial Skipping?

[JonTurner]

>>viewers will be able to pause, fast forward, and rewind

What's this about not being able to skip commercials? Any commercials?

Say I want to watch just the final ten minutes of something, does that mean I must sit through SEVENTEEN minutes of commercials first before I'm "allowed" to view the ending?

No thanks. I (and everyone else, I suspect) will just wait for the Torrent.

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[AndyG314]

What I gathered was that you would not be able to skip or fast forward over the commercials.

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[generic-man]

You can skip chapters, but each chapter includes advertising in the middle. There are also lots of product placements that, with the help of Google, will dynamically place products you want to buy into key scenes.

"Say, Denise, would you pick up that Lite-On 8X dual-layer DVD burner with Linux drivers? I say, I don't feel like myself without a nice Lite-On 8X dual-layer DVD burner with Linux drivers any more."

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[itscolduphere]

Say I want to watch just the final ten minutes of something, does that mean I must sit through SEVENTEEN minutes of commercials first before I'm "allowed" to view the ending?

Indeed...welcome to 1990, I guess.

Still interesting, overall. I'm more interested in the technical details of these releases, which both the article and ABC.com don't seem to want to give much info on. What format will they be in, what bitrate, what resolution, etc. If they can beat the quality of the respective BitTorrent releases, I might actually consider this (the only real reason I use torrents over iTunes is because the quality is too low for my tastes...the ability to burn to DVD doesn't mean much, because I just pump it out to TV from my laptop).

I imagine there will be DRM involved (so as to prevent commercial skipping, and to keep people from hacking the commercials out altogether and re-releasing it on torrent), so I wonder how that will work. Will it work on my Mac?

I have a feeling that once all these questions are answered, I'll be much less than satisfied. However, if a network wants to release their shows at a high quality, in a format I can pipe to my TV (which in my case just means anything that I can play full-screen on my computer), then I don't even mind watching their commercials.

Let us not forget that, under the current system, it's those commercials that pay for the show (at least for OTA networks and non-premium cable channels). If nobody watches them, the show goes away. I'm not saying this is optimal, but I don't see it changing drastically in the very near future.

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[nursegirl]

Check out the press release. They're using Flash 8 encoding to prevent it from being downloaded. Available Windows & Mac.

Episodes will be available at two resolutions, the better being 700x394 pixels at 700 kbps. I might have to start watching one of these shows just to support the effort.

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[itscolduphere]

Thanks for the info...I'll probably have to check this out.

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

I (and everyone else, I suspect) will just wait for the Torrent.
Isn't that called "projection" in psycology- when you assume, wrongly, that other will do what you do?
How many people who are using torrents watch Desperate Housewives and vice versa. What you are saying, is that you will find a torrent, download it etc to save from watching a couple ads?
Look- I am not a big fan of a lot of DRM at the RIAA etc, but you can't expect networks to give their products away. I am assuming that you are young and don't work yet- but when you get old, move out of the rents house, go to work at a company, you will understand that companies can't produce expensive shows and then just give them away. They would go out of business. When you get a job, ask yourself if you would work for free so your company can give its product away for free. I will enjoy a little projection of my own, and say your answer will be no.

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[k12linux]

Look- I am not a big fan of a lot of DRM at the RIAA etc, but you can't expect networks to give their products away.

Why not? Last time I checked you didn't need to pay to watch ABC stuff on your TV. If they leave commercials in it will be little different than if you tivoed the show.

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[Anonymous Coward]

Its called commercials FAG!!! Is that AKA Im Batman helmet on too tight?

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[jZnat]

Hey, now there's a product I would buy! You should go into marketing.

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[demonlapin]

Well, assuming you're the one woman left in America who doesn't already watch Desperate Housewives, it's good for some water-cooler talk.

Seriously, though, try Lost. You'll like it.

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[EvanED]

What makes you so sure that all the commercials that were in the broadcast of the show will be included in the web download? The linked article says there would be 16-18 minutes of commercials, but I suspect this is no less surmise on their part than your post.

I'd wager that even people as short-sighted as the network executives would realize that people wouldn't watch that many, and that there'd be 5 or 10 minute in the episode. 3 commercials per break instead of 10 or something.

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[JonTurner]

It's not projection. It's called 'paying attention to the marketplace' aka Market Research. In case you weren't aware, the networks hire companies to watch what's "hot" on the torrent and P2P scene.

Your silly personal attacks aside (referred to in psychology as "being a wiseass"), nobody's asking the networks to give away the shows. I simply want the freedom to choose whether to watch the commercials or not. I'd say about half the time, I do. Locking me into watching commercials simply pisses me off in the same way that many DVDs try to force me to watch their stupid movie trailers. (which I then defeat by ripping the disc and removing the trailers. Since I own a licensed copy, it's Fair Use.)

Just sayin' that while I appreciate what the studio is trying to do, making a product that is less convenient is not necessarily a recipe for success. They may have to start trusting their customers, someday.

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[Duds]

And that's the other problem with them doing it the day after. There's no "wait for the torrent", it'll already be downloaded, watched and SEEDPLZed before ABC have even half uploaded.

Re:No Commercial Skipping?

[Anonymous Coward]

Behind every great woman... Is a man checking out her ass

I don't get it? Are you the woman or are you the castrated FAG!!! checking out her ass because you thought it was a Tripmaster Monkey?

no brainer indeed

[farker haiku]

In many ways, it's a no-brainer, as viewers have demonstrated by their viewing habits that they want more control over where, when, and how they watch programming. ....
All programs will be shown in their entirety, including commercials which cannot be avoided.

So, basically I should still use netflix if I don't want to see commercials.

Re:no brainer indeed

[poot_rootbeer]

So, basically if I have to wait until the next day to view a free broadcast TV program I missed when it aired live the night before, I should still use my favorite TV torrent site, where I can get a commercial-free copy that I can keep indefinitely.

Re:no brainer indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Give them a break. This is actually a pretty ballsy move. If they do it right, I bet they make the torrent traffic for their programs more or less dry up. This sounds like a sensible compromise that might even help augment their ad revenue. The nay-sayers should give them credit for doing what no other network has had the guts to try.

Re:no brainer indeed

[FerretFrottage]

Yep...well except for all the previews/commericals at the beginning of the DVD (assuming non hacked player and/or user re-authored DVD)

Re:no brainer indeed

[krakelohm]

As long as you dont mind waiting till the season is over.

Re:no brainer indeed

[voorko02]

It is a free TV program that was paid for by the commercials that air durring it. I don't understand why anyone could have any complaints about this. I didn't see what resolution the shows would be at and I'd like for a full HD resolution when possible, but as a first step I think this is excellent.

I don't think commercials are going anywhere, nor should they. If you don't want to watch commercials then buy the episode off iTunes or wait and rent the season from Netflix, but if you want them for free, certain sacrifices should be made. Saying that you'll still download a torrent is part of the problem.

Do people actually think that asking for the network to provide the shows free of charge without advertising is a reasonable request? Is the hope that an open source entertainment industry will sprout up? Based on a sampling of the free podcasts available, you get what you pay for.

Re:no brainer indeed

[Anonymous Coward]

Is NetFlix free now? I didn't realize that.

Re:no brainer indeed

[Lord Kano]

TANSTAAFL. Personally, I too understand the draw of the commercial-free goodness coming out of the torrentsphere, but if the networks didn't make money off of the shows there wouldn't be any shows to watch.

LK

Re:no brainer indeed

[shmlco]

"Is the hope that an open source entertainment industry will sprout up?"

Absolutely. Someone will donate a back lot. Others will donate their used $250 Hi-8 camcorders and some table lamps. The local weekend actors troop will donate their time... and from that, we'll get enough free content to fill several hundred channels 365/24/7, plus feature films.

I mean, which part don't you understand?

Re:no brainer indeed

[nasch]

Or wait until the next day and watch it on Tivo, skipping the commercials. Oh, right, I forgot - that isn't free. Everything has to be free, or else we'll get it from a torrent site.

Re:no brainer indeed

[networkBoy]

That really bugs me.
I have started ripping all movies and streaming them over my home network to my TV just because of the 10-15 min of forced trailers you have to watch. Then I discovered a bug that is a feature in my cheapy DVD player:
Insert disk and wait for the forced previews to start.
Push [stop] [stop] [play]
Watch feature start right up :-)
-nB

Re:no brainer indeed

[jZnat]

The main Creative Commons Licenses (by, sa, and/or nc) are the closest we'll ever get to "open source media" for a long time, but it does exist.

Re:no brainer indeed

[timeOday]

Do people actually think that asking for the network to provide the shows free of charge without advertising is a reasonable request?

Almost all of us *are* paying for TV, I know I do, to the tune of about $75/month. So no, I don't worry about grabbing something that was already piped into my livingroom once (while I wasn't there). I agree that downloading what you wouldn't otherwise get (i.e. downloading HBO shows if you don't get HBO) is different. (Actually I rarely ever download; I PVR instead, which is identical from the industry's point of view).

I know real TV economics are currently more complicated than that, but they shouldn't be, and maybe acting as if you're really paying a monthly bill for what you watch will move the market in that direction. I welcome the day I can stop paying for 199 misc. channels and start paying for ala-carte programs I actually watch. Right now the most expensive cable channel I get is ESPN, which I absolutely never watch. It's wasteful, and of course it's the consumer that has to suck it up.

Re:no brainer indeed

[voorko02]

You aren't paying for ABC or at least you don't have to be. You also don't have to pay to watch the shows being offered on ABC's website, hence the inclusion of ads.

I completely agree that cable companies are overcharging us for cable channels and including ads, but thats an entirely different discussion. This was about people complaing that the free content that ABC plans to provide will include ads and that they won't be able to skip over them.

My question was "do people honestly expect ABC to offer their programs on the interent for free without any advertising?", and if so "how do they hope for ABC to continue to be able to afford to produce those shows?".

I don't think we're of that much differing an option. I think you're just hung up on the fact that you already pay for cable, but with ABC's model in the future you might not have to. ABC offers the shows with commercials for free or you pay for them commercial free on iTunes. Isn't that what everyone's been asking for? Assuming the quality of the downloads on iTunes gets to HD in the near future, I know most of my complaints will be well on their way to being resolved.

Re:no brainer indeed

[voorko02]

I will admit my open source entertainment industry question was inaccurate, mostly because its completely irrelevent to the topic. There is nothing stopping people from creating their own content and releasing it on the internet. Whether or not any of that content is all that good is another question entirely.

"we'll get enough free content to fill several hundred channels 365/24/7",

For me the point of media is not to fill time for the sake of filling time. Maybe you prefer your local high school's theater production instead of broadway or public access instead of cable? Its fine with me if thats the sort of content you want, but don't complain when higher quality productions refuse to give their product away for free. Could Lost be done by a bunch of guys in their garage on the weekend? Maybe. Would I rather pay a couple bucks an episode (or heaven forbid watch a few commercials) if it meant that they had the time and money to hire better actors and have better effects and meant that it was released on a weekly basis as opposed to whenever they had the spare time to work on it? Definitely.

What I don't understand is why people think that all of this content should be free. Do you think that all of those people would donate their time if there was no entertainment industry for them to break into? Do you honestly think what they produce in their spare tiime would be as good as what they could produce if they did that for a living?

Re:no brainer indeed

[timeOday]

ABC offers the shows with commercials for free or you pay for them commercial free on iTunes. Isn't that what everyone's been asking for? Assuming the quality of the downloads on iTunes gets to HD in the near future, I know most of my complaints will be well on their way to being resolved.

Yes, that's what I think too. (Except the technical detail of iTunes not working for me on Linux).

Re:no brainer indeed

[hummassa]

Do people actually think that asking for the network to provide the shows free of charge without advertising is a reasonable request?

No -- at least I don't. But I believe (and I think many here do) that just as you can get up and go fetch a beer on the fridge or take a leak during the ads (or FF over them on the TiVo), there is no point on the ads being "unskippable" (this is the main reason I used to like watching DVDs on the PC: the "unskippable" ads and warnings at the beginning... but my new DVD set just skips over them without complaining :-)

Re:no brainer indeed

[shmlco]

Let me be clear... [sarcasm] "and from that, we'll get enough free content to fill several hundred channels 365/24/7" [/sarcasm] Or in other words, I'm with you. I fail to see how we, for example, are best served by having my favorite author working days and making piad personal appearances just so he can make score money to write his next book. Personally, I'd rather he spend all of his time WRITING his next book, so I can get it and buy it as soon as possible. If enough people do it, then he's a success. If no one likes it, thne no one buys it, and eventually he goes back to flipping burgers. We already have a remarkably efficient feedback mechanism in place. "What I don't understand is why people think that all of this content should be free." Stealing it is easy to do, the risks are relatively non-existent compared to shoplifting, they want it, and because of that they believe they're entitled to it. Being entertained for free is their "right".

Re:no brainer indeed

[voorko02]

Ahhh... I'm an idiot.

If only you had used an emoticon or two in your origninal response, maybe that one where the smily face is winking, this kind of mixup would have been more easily avoided. Oh and to avoid continued confusion, I'm kidding. I hate emoticons, yet I love the word... how odd.

Re:no brainer indeed

[voorko02]

The reason they are "unskippable" is because they are free. If you don't want the ads, purchase the DVD set or buy the commercial free version off iTunes (or whatever download service they ultimately end up offering their shows through).

Look I love my TiVo, and I love being able to condense an hour long shows into 40 minutes, but for me the real purpose of TiVo was always to be able to watch what you want, when you want. Due to the nature of providing that service (waiting for it to be broadcast and then recording it), being able to FF through shows was an obvious feature. This is an entirely different model. You don't need to pay for cable or for a TiVo or your cable companies' DVR. You just select the show you want and watch it.

I completely agree that the DVD you purchase shouldn't have unskippable ads, but the difference is, you bought that DVD. You aren't sending any money ABC's way when you watch these programs. All you are agreeing to is to give them a little bit of your time in return. If you feel your time is more valuable, then buy the commercial free version or wait for the DVD set.

Commercial Skipping

[lax-goalie]

Maybe if advertisers stopped making commercials that are crap, they wouldn't need to lock us out of fast forward during commercials.

It can be done. How many Super Bowls have had commercials better than the game?

Re:Commercial Skipping

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Super Bowls have had commercials better than the game?

I don't know. I use my TiVo to fast forward through them. The Superbowls that is.

Re:Commercial Skipping

[Anonymous Coward]

How many Super Bowls have had commercials better than the game?

None. Maybe this year's snoozefest, but the commercials weren't too good either.

Re:Commercial Skipping

[Otter]

It can be done. How many Super Bowls have had commercials better than the game?

There ya go! Reunite the '85 Patriots and the '92 Bills, give them sitcoms and suddenly the commercials will look a lot better!

I'm thinking Everybody Loves Thurman Thomas...

Re:Commercial Skipping

[Lord_Dweomer]

What I'd love to see, which they could easily do now that this is on the web would be to have a rating system for the commercials. This could provide good info to advertisers to realize when their commercials suck balls or when they are good. Similar to what Tivo has.

Re:Commercial Skipping

[Rac3r5]

u mean like those GoDaddy.com commercials.. :p

Re:Commercial Skipping

[se7en11]

I disagree with the commercials being crap. Our household recently decided to do without a TV and it's been just under a year now. But the few chances I get to watch TV, whether it be at a friend's house or whatever, the commercials are actually laugh-out-loud funny.

Could it be that we've just dulled our senses?

Re:Commercial Skipping

[Hatta]

Maybe if advertisers stopped making commercials that are crap, they wouldn't need to lock us out of fast forward during commercials.

Impossible. Commercials are crap, no matter how you try to dress them up. If they were something worth watching, they'd be called "content" and they'd have crappy commercials inserted into them.

It can be done. How many Super Bowls have had commercials better than the game?

That doesn't mean the commercials aren't crap. Just that the super bowl is even worse crap.

Re:Commercial Skipping

[kenthorvath]

Maybe if advertisers stopped making commercials that are crap, they wouldn't need to lock us out of fast forward during commercials.

I have no problem with commercials, per se. It's just that I can't stand being interrupted from a program to watch them. I'd rather the program start late and end early for the commercials to air, than to be subjected to constant interruption. FWIW, I have a Tivo and so it's not really a problem for me now, but I don't mind the commercials when aired before and after a show like they do on the BBC.

Re:Commercial Skipping

[PlasticArmyMan]

I imagine a lot but bear in my mind how much money is pumped into each of them. A lot of thought will be put into Superbowl commercials. Your everyday run of the mill advert is usually halfassed. Creativity is spread really thin...

Re:Commercial Skipping

[yndrd1984]

How many Super Bowls have had commercials better than the game?

All of them. The only entertaining part of football is watching men of the most homophobic nation on earth get mesmerized by a bunch of sweaty, muscular guys in spandex jump on each other, grunt a lot, slap each other's asses and do what have to be the gayest victory dances ever.

Re:Commercial Skipping

[maximthemagnificent]

Oh yeah, content better than watching of bunch of grown men throw a ball around and jump on one another. Let me tune in to that!

It's a start

[fatcatman]

Before we jump all over ABC here - "What?! Only 4 shows?! And they all suck!" - this is a huge step forward. I hope this program is successful, as it would mean people like myself without a clear OTA signal will be able to legally download broadcast television.

The bigger concern here is what will the laws say about my ripping the forced commercials out? Given the industry's history in developing copy protection schemes, this will likely be a trivial matter. Now, it's perfectly legal for me to do this with the OTA signal - will the DMCA be invoked against people who do this with the downloads?

Anyway, let's congratulate ABC on this leap of faith. I am appreciative of it, and may sit through a few of those awful shows just to support their new distribution model.

Re:It's a start

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

The bigger concern here is what will the laws say about my ripping the forced commercials out? Given the industry's history in developing copy protection schemes, this will likely be a trivial matter. Now, it's perfectly legal for me to do this with the OTA signal - will the DMCA be invoked against people who do this with the downloads?

Although the details are missing, almost certainly the shows will be good ol' Windows Media with DRM to prevent this very thing from happening. Yes, I would fully expect that should someone find a way to beat the DRM and make commercial free copies available that the long arm of the law will come after them.

Re:It's a start

[Anonymous Coward]

I was thinking the same thing since we only get one channel, CBS OTA and won't pay for cable. I hate monthly bills but the DSL does make my life easier. TV is just entertainment. Can't justify paying for it.

Re:It's a start

[MindStalker]

Yes, but the question is if you remove the commericals yourself, and watch the show yourself. Is it illigal??? Of course redistributing the show is illigal, as distributing the program to rip out the commericals is illigal (DMCA).

Re:It's a start

[fatcatman]

Yes, I would fully expect that should someone find a way to beat the DRM and make commercial free copies available that the long arm of the law will come after them.

As would I, as this is already happening now with people who record OTA and redistribute.

However, I was thinking more along the lines of someone distributing a small program that does this for you, not the content itself. In that manner, I would be breaking the mandatory commercial scheme on my own download of the show. It seems perfectly acceptable to me - afterall, this tool would be no different than a Tivo in terms of the end result.

Re:It's a start

[!equal]

Was it illegal to rip out commercials on an old tape and give it to a friend?

Re:It's a start

[hackstraw]

Am I the last person on the planet that watches TV on a TV?

Am I the only person on the planet that uses a DVR on a TV?

Re:It's a start

[HybridJeff]

No, you're only the last person on Slashdot.

Re:It's a start

[hackstraw]

No, you're only the last person on Slashdot.

Interesting. I work with computers for a living, which too might be a niche or minority on Slashdot as well.

I'm not a big TV buff, but its nice sometimes to zone and do mindless stuff in front of my 46" TV that is a little ways across the room, so my eyes can focus on something at a different range of distance that I'm accustomed to from working 8+ hours a day in front of a computer.

I'm probably a minority or singularity here on Slashdot because I have friends that come over to my house. They like watching commercial free HD broadcasts on a larger screen vs crowding around a small computer monitor.

Here are some data regarding American TV usage: link.

When 99% of the population owns a TV and on average camps out 4 hours a day in front of it, well the data is probably out of date like I am. I also don't live in my mother's basement. Wow, I'm really starting to feel old :)

Re:It's a start

[fatcatman]

They like watching commercial free HD broadcasts on a larger screen vs crowding around a small computer monitor.

You seem to equate computer displayed/downloaded content with a small monitor.

You do understand, don't you, that you can quickly configure a computer to display content on your 46" HDTV natively? I used to have a 65" widescreen HD display. My computer fed DVDs and AVIs and video games and anything else I wanted right to it. Nobody seemed to have a problem "crowding around" that "small" computer monitor.

I replaced that little monitor with a 12 foot display driven by an HD projector. Again, virtually all of the content I watch on it is fed by a computer. So I can watch these ABC downloads on an entire wall. Again, people don't seem to mind crowding around it.

I don't know anyone who actually watches downloaded movies and TV shows on a regular computer monitor. I do, however, know a lot of people who use an HTPC to display virtually all of their content on big RPTVs like yours.

Two words:

[abscissa]

Windows media.

Related article on CNN

[moochfish]

Disney to put TV shows online
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/10/news/companies/dis ney.reut/index.htm?section=cnn_topstories

Re:Related article on CNN

[xbradlyx]

Disney to put TV shows online
http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/10/news/companies/dis ney.reut/index.htm?section=cnn_topstories

ABC is Disney.

And while we are at it... Pixar is Disney which is ABC, and Steve Jobs is Pixar, and Steve Jobs is Apple, and iTunes is Apple, and iTunes already sells some ABC shows. Interesting, no?

-bradly

Re:Related article on CNN

[LiquidCoooled]

Buy the show without adverts, or have adverts displayed on the free version.
Hmmmmmm now which websites offer similar...

The model will work for them, more eyes on legal tv over the web mean more advertising revenue which can only be a good thing.

Now supposing the quality is good, ethically, should we stop downloading the torrents?

Unavoidable commercials?

[reklusband]

Like the constant ads we see in every tv show and movie? Want a COKE? It's the taste of the new generation! No Thanks, I'll just have a water,but have you seen my new Timex watch and Converse All stars? Or, do they mean little flashes of "buy crap now,buy crap now" in the fast forwarded ads. I wonder what subliminal brokerage ads or 90's style jeans ads would be like. You have this irresistable urge to go do...something or wear maybe pants? Unavoidable ads! Yeah!

Customer convenience

[PIPBoy3000]

Torrents are hard to beat in terms of convenience. They're typically HDTV, commercial free, and can be downloaded the next day. The catch, of course, is that they're inconvenient for non-technical people. They have to find a site that has them, click a link, wait for a download, and so on.

I think it's very smart for ABC to offer up a very easy way to watch shows via their website. The catch is that they'll likely be somewhat poor quality and you have commercials. People live with commercials now. I suspect it would be even easier at your computer, where you can ALT-Tab to something else for a few minutes. Still, it's enough of a hassle that torrents won't go away any time soon.

I wonder how local stations feel about this? Local stations get their ad revenue by selling local advertising. If people move to this and stop watching television, local stations may start disappearing. A similar issue was raised with NPR and podcasting just last week.

Re:Customer convenience

[cmowire]

Consider this, however....

When you have alt-tab'd out and have something else covering up the bud lite girls, you are still listening and therefore having your subconscious subverted.

As far as I'm concerned, there's no real reason why the stations need to be screwed over. Just make an approximate guess as to your geographical location via your IP address and splice in the local used car dealership threatening to club a baby seal if you don't buy a car from him.

Re:Customer convenience

[Captain Splendid]

The next day? I missed last week's episode of Lost (actually came home at 9:30, and didn't want to watch halfway through). Lurked at the torrent sites after 10PM, and by midnight I had the ep on my HD. That's less than 2 hours from show end to me watching it. If ABC were smart, they'd make episodes available online the minute they ended, not the next day. Talk about replay value.

Re:Customer convenience

[jZnat]

Some media players (namely Kaffeine as one I can think of) include a convenience of pausing the video you're watching if you unfocus the window (or when you minimise). Maybe they've already thought of that? Besides, the only viable way of doing what they're saying is to stream it without allowing skipping of content except for specific bookmarks. If you control the streaming server, it's trivial to prevent initial skipping of commercials (the user would have to record the stream and then strip it of commercials if they even cared enough to do so in the first place).

DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[sgant]

Forget the morons above when they complain about "oh, it's the day after? WAH WAH WAH" or "Can't skip the commercials WAH WAH WAH".

They're trying to embrace a new delivery medium and you these idiots are fricken complaining about it. Come on, ABC should be congratulated for thinking outside the standard line that RIAA and the MPAA have been harping on. The net will make a great delivery service and they're heading out into it full steam ahead.

But no, months ago people were saying this is what they should do, and now that they're doing it, it's not enough. Give them what they want, and you get a big "fuck you" in return.

I welcome this.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod parent up!! Bravo!! I'm sometimes embarassed to be a geek, because if I use Slashdot as my baseline, it seems like all geeks must be whiny little fucktards.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[Digital Vomit]

They're not quite doing what we said they should do. Here's what we said they should do:

- Offer television programs as downloadable files (e.g. a nice XviD or something) with no restrictions that can be archived, traded, and/or watched at your leisure.

Here's what they did do:

- Offer televesion programs in a restricted format watchable online only as streaming videos with no opportunity to record or, apparently, skip commercials (or so it would seem from the article).

You, like the TV studios, still apparently don't "get it".

Currently the P2P networks are providing exactly what we want. That's the target the networks need to aim for. Nothing less will succeed to any significant degree.

The networks need to provide the shows (with or without commercials) at varying levels of quality (for higher or lower bandwidth users) for download (preferably as torrents) with no strings attached before they air. That would work. Anything less is like aiming for failure.

They have to take a psychological approach to this one. People like shiny and official. Package the TV shows as something you'll want to collect and archive. That will get people downloading them.

And they need to ignore the fact that there are some people who would strip out the commercials and re-share them. This is unavoidable and proven not to have a significant negative impact (e.g. music, movies).

As for commercials, here's an idea: maybe they'll have to start making commercials with the actors in the show hawking the wares. You could make mini, thirty second skits that advertize big name products like they used to do when TV was in its infancy. It could be presented as a little "slice of life" of the characters in the show. "OMG! Jack Bauer uses Crest! I should, too!"

You probably couldn't do all commercials on a network like that, but maybe for certain downloadable shows you could. People would want to watch and re-watch that because it is entertaining.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[dr_dank]

Forget the morons above when they complain about "oh, it's the day after? WAH WAH WAH" or "Can't skip the commercials WAH WAH WAH".

Proof positive that you can always drive your point home by inserting Eddie Van Halen guitar licks into your conversations.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[vanyel]

It may be a (small) step forward in thinking, but why on earth would I put up with lame-brain commercials when I already have it on tivo? Getting it early is not much help either, as I usually run several days behind anyhow just finding time to watch all the good shows. Even before tivo, I muted commercials and ignored them as much as I could. I'd rather pay money to subscribe to shows and do without the commercials entirely.

One thing they *could* do however is this:

1. Make the commercials interesting to watch instead of being as stupid as most are
2. Give you show credits towards your subscribed shows for watching them as a separate batch.

That way they don't interrupt the program flow and there's incentive to watch them. And even if people just turn them on and leave, that's not really any different that existing commercials. If they're interesting, people will actually watch them though.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[jdavidb]

2. Give you show credits towards your subscribed shows for watching them as a separate batch.

Sounds like a good idea to me! I start the commercials downloading, take a bathroom break while they play, and come back to free show credits! :)

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[utexaspunk]

They're not quite doing what we said they should do. Here's what we said they should do:

Offer television programs as downloadable files (e.g. a nice XviD or something) with no restrictions that can be archived, traded, and/or watched at your leisure.

Who the hell was saying that? That would be suicide for them if they did that.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[shreak]

They're not quite doing what we said they should do. Here's what we said they should do: - Offer television programs as downloadable files (e.g. a nice XviD or something) with no restrictions that can be archived, traded, and/or watched at your leisure. Here's what they did do: - Offer television programs in a restricted format watchable online only as streaming videos with no opportunity to record or, apparently, skip commercials (or so it would seem from the article). You, like the TV studios, still apparently don't "get it".

Maybe they don't get it, but it's clear from your post that you don't either. You want them to hand everything to you gratis. They want you to hand them all your cash. With a smile please. We've identified the polemics, that's step one. Step two is you reach a win-win midpoint where you both get a deal you're happy with. Or you walk away. You're obviously not happy with the deal. So walk away. Unfortunately for all involved this is the worst kind of market: Non-Commodity, Non-Negotiated. In the best case you're dealing with commodities so you don't need to negotiate. Why bother? A widget is a widget. Name your price or place a bid, depending on which role you're playing. Next is a negotiated market. Haggle with your seller until you reach a price you think is fair. Not bad if you're in a fluid, info rich market. You can "overhear" other negotiations and have an idea of where "fair" is. Worse (we're here) is a non-commodity, non-negotiated market. This is tough for both parties. You can't just "go somewhere else" since the product isn't a commodity. There's no mechanism for negotiation so it's a take-it or leave-it proposition. The seller can't determine where the price floor is and the buyer has no mechanism to communicate bids to the seller, he can only walk away. =Shreak

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[moofdaddy]

You people drive me crazy. Guess what, TV is not free! What do you want them to do, offer commerical free shows too? I'm fine with sitting through a couple of commericals. That is not why I download torrents. I download torrents because I don't have cable, just basic channels. So I can't watch The Shield, Sopranos, South Park, etc. If I were able to hop on the next day and watch the shows I missed I would do it in a heart beat.

The point that they have been "missing" is that people want to time shift TV. Schedules are not always flexible to catch the shows you want to watch when they air. Advertising is the cost you pay for the shows you enjoy.

Good job ABC!

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[Dare nMc]

>with no restrictions that can be archived, traded, and/or watched at your leisure.

>>Who the hell was saying that? That would be suicide for them if they did that.

well, Tivo, and Replay TV have offered this, and they download at realtime. instead of 1/8th speed (full T1 is 1.5MBps, DVD 1x is 11MB/s) I am sure a few people have the bandwith to download at real time, but not enough to feel.

So why would it be suicide, to provide this service directly, instead of through a 3rd party? maybe suicide to their servers if they didn't setup torrents. If they provide a decent service to find the shows, then people come to their pages, and they get more chances to get add revenue, not less.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[utexaspunk]

Believe me, the TV networks are not happy with the popularization of DVR's. They are most definitely fucking with their business models, and they are beginning to feel it. When DVR's are as mainstream as DVD players you can bet that their model will adapt (unless, of course, they bribe congress into protecting them) Besides, the OP was suggesting the networks give away all their content in a unrestricted, freely-editable, freely-redistributable format. That's NOT Tivo or ReplayTV.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[Manchot]

Offer television programs as downloadable files (e.g. a nice XviD or something) with no restrictions that can be archived, traded, and/or watched at your leisure.

So basically, you want to get something for nothing. How do you expect them to make any money from this?

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[Dare nMc]

> give away all their content in a
I only read that it was proposed to offer many of their shows, for download for private use, not copyright free. As I understand it, ABC already broadcasts their shows freely, in a unrestricted format, at least in my neighborhood.

> freely-editable, freely-redistributable format. That's NOT Tivo or ReplayTV.
hmmm, both have PC application's available for free from sourceforge that does exactly that, and Tivo's now comes with a DVD recorder.
My HD-Tivo, I click on a link from the webserver running on the Tivo, and it starts downloading the HD content in a editable format. Granted it didn't ship with the CD's to do that. But neither did my pc ship with a app to do the same with any other video type.
> you can bet that their model will adapt
yep, and thats what is being proposed.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[TheRaven64]

Currently the P2P networks are providing exactly what we want

They may be providing what you want. What I want is easy to find, easy and fast to download, and of a guaranteed quality[1]. The P2P networks provide none of these, so there is a definite market it. I would consider iTMS, except that it doesn't release video in the UK in a timely fashion (I believe they still only have music videos and Pixar shorts[2]) and it overcharges horrendously in the UK (I'd pay between $1 and £1 for video, not £1.89.

[1] I am referring to picture quality here. I realise quality of the content is very hard to guarantee for most TV shows...
[2] Does anyone else remember these being free for download before iTMS hosted them? http://www.pixar.com/shorts/index.html">The Wayback Machine does...

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[HybridJeff]

"It may be a (small) step forward in thinking, but why on earth would I put up with lame-brain commercials when I already have it on tivo? Getting it early is not much help either, as I usually run several days behind anyhow just finding time to watch all the good shows. Even before tivo, I muted commercials and ignored them as much as I could. I'd rather pay money to subscribe to shows and do without the commercials entirely."

This isnt targeted at you, its for evreyone who doesn't have a tivo, but does have broadband. Basically, they want to provide an alternative means of time shifting in place of using a tivo or vcr (which allows people to skip their source of revenue, commercials).

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[shark72]

"Currently the P2P networks are providing exactly what we want. That's the target the networks need to aim for. Nothing less will succeed to any significant degree."

Please define "significant." Apple and the TV networks are making millions off of TV show downloads on the iTMS.

Granted, the iTMS may not be right for you, and thus you are "forced" to use P2P. But there are lots of other types of people out there.

The networks are not going after the Slashdot crowd -- the "information wants to be free" folks for whom, I suspect, nothing will ever be good enough unless it's suicidal from a business standpoint. They are instead going after the mainstream audience; those who are willing to open their wallets. There's a lot more of them out there than there are of us.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

"But no, months ago people were saying this is what they should do, and now that they're doing it, it's not enough. Give them what they want, and you get a big "fuck you" in return."

Whining is what makes the karma go around.

In any event, I welcome this, too. I can think of a few shows off the top of my head that I'd like to see, but the repeats are mid-way through the series. What good is that? Who wants to catch Battlestar Galactica in the middle? If I could stream the show, even with commercials, for free, I'd be able to catch up. They get their ad revenue, I don't have to shell out $$$.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[Snaller]

Forget the morons above when they complain about "oh, it's the day after? WAH WAH WAH" or "Can't skip the commercials WAH WAH WAH".

People with a higher IQ than yours are pointing out this is a bad model with nothing of value to most customers.

They're trying to embrace a new delivery medium and you these idiots are fricken complaining about it.

Don't be an idiot - just because someone tries something different doesn't mean its good or should be applauded - certainly not this.

But no, months ago people were saying this is what they should do, and now that they're doing it, it's not enough

I don't know what ass you had your head up in, but I've never asked them to do THIS - this is crap.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[sgant]

So genius, enlighten us with your model. What is it that you wanted them to do? Just give the shows away for free, commercial free, at high resolution?

You're quick to say that it's crap, but offer no alternative at all. How are they to make money? Or should they even approach online delivery at all?

Free, high-res divx downloads with no commercials. Great, sounds like a winner. But I have a feeling if even if they did that, there would still be people like you who complain.

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[rgravina]

What kind of fantasy land to you live in? If you could easily skip the commercials (and in that case everybody would) then how would you get advertisers to pay for this? Advertising supported content means that in return for getting your content for free you have to sit through a certain amount of advertising.

At least the ABC is providing something reasonable here - free content that works cross-platform. In exchange for this free content you have to stream it, rather than download it, and watch commercials before (and possibly during) the show. Those are the breaks.

At least congratulate them for doing that much, and not a) charging you for the content or b) like AOL has done, require Windows XP!

Really, I just can't understand your beef. No content provider in their right mind would provide you with shows that you can download for free and skip the commercials. No advertiser would agree to such conditions, and it would be all cost for them with absolutely nothing to gain.

And that comment about actors flogging the products mid-show 1950's-style is abso-fragin-lutely ridiculous!

Re:DING DING DING! About bloody time!

[Snaller]

So genius, enlighten us with your model.

I don't have to have "a model" to express disaproval.

You're quick to say that it's crap, but offer no alternative at all.

It is not required, infact that's their job not mine.

How are they to make money?

Not my problem.

Or should they even approach online delivery at all?

You keep going on about what they do - I don't care what they do. If they offer me something that I would be willing to pay for, well then I'd pay for it - otherwise they are just another bunch of greedy noise makers that i try mostly to ignore.
Free, high-res divx downloads with no commercials. Great, sounds like a winner. But I have a feeling if even if they did that, there would still be people like you who complain.

You are probably thinking of yourself.

Free on iTMS, too?

[ZombieRoboNinja]

I wonder if Apple will still be charging a couple bucks an episode when viewers now have the choice of getting a commercial-loaded copy for free instead.

It'd be nice if the ad-supported version were available for free through iTMS, but that would probably require ABC to actually pay APPLE per download to cover bandwidth costs and overhead, which might be problematic.

Anyway, if Apple doesn't work out SOME kind of new deal, it seems safe to say their $2 iTMS episodes aren't gonna be selling very well anymore, except among the video iPod loyalists.

Re:Free on iTMS, too?

[Daniel_Staal]

But the versions on iTunes don't have commercials, and can be played away from the computer. Depending on quality and useablity, it may well be true that both versions have value to consumers. I'd guess they may well be able to co-exist, serving different consumers.

Re:Free on iTMS, too?

[mgoren]

I, for one, would much rather pay the $2 to download an ad-free episode that I can watch whenever and wherever I want, rather than yet another way to watch a streamed(?) version with ads.

Re:Free on iTMS, too?

[ZachPruckowski]

iTMS TV shows can be downloaded and played, instead of streamed. This allows you to watch them while commuting, or on an iPod, and it lets you watch them again without clogging up your internet pipe several times, which may or may not have bandwidth limits.

Re:Free on iTMS, too?

[generic-man]

For $2, you get a poor-quality video file that can be played only on a limited number of computers with QuickTime/iTunes and only on an iPod (no other portable players).

I own a Mac and an iPod, but torrents completely trounce any paid content on quality and flexibility. At least the iTunes Music Store lets you burn your AACs to CD; by contrast, purchased video files can't be burned to DVD-R.

Re:Free on iTMS, too?

[Phroggy]

For $2,

The Multipass version of the Daily Show gives me 16 episodes (four weeks at four episodes per week) for $10, or $0.625 per episode. They're only $2 if you buy them individually. I haven't looked at other shows like Lost, so I'm not sure how the prices compare.

you get a poor-quality video file

It's not HD or anything, but it's certainly better quality than I get from over-the-air TV. Played on a 19" CRT, I really don't notice the quality being an issue. If I had a projector, I'd probably notice, and for a full movie I'd want better quality. Don't assume the quality will be unacceptable until you've seen it. I find it perfectly adequate, but if you've seen it and think it looks bad, then you have a legitimate reason not to buy it.

that can be played only on a limited number of computers with QuickTime/iTunes

Yes, you can't play it on Linux (unless you can hack something together with WINE). Windows and Mac only. As for the limited number, I haven't run into the limit yet.

and only on an iPod (no other portable players).

If you have some other portable video player, then obviously you'd only want content that it can play. Most of us don't have one.

I own a Mac and an iPod, but torrents completely trounce any paid content on quality and flexibility.

And price. But iTMS wins for convenience and legality.

At least the iTunes Music Store lets you burn your AACs to CD; by contrast, purchased video files can't be burned to DVD-R.

Huh? What do you mean? Of course you can burn them to DVD-R...

Re:Free on iTMS, too?

[Carnivore]

Do they still charge you for weeks that are all re-runs like this week's Colbert Reports, or does your subscription get another week added to it?

Re:Free on iTMS, too?

[Daniel_Staal]

You've already got the episode, so they don't charge you any more for it. If I recall correctly, it's a season pass, so no matter how many episiodes there are a season you get all of them.

iTunes suscriptions aren't time-limited. You get all the episiodes released inside the timeframe you have a subscription for, but you can play them forever.

Re:Free on iTMS, too?

[generic-man]

I played the iTMS pilot of "Conviction" on my DLP TV (1280x720) from my Powerbook, connecting the two using DVI. The video quality was very pixelated and noticeably worse than watching other similar shows (i.e. dramas, little action) from digital cable channels. I have watched "HDTV" torrents (usually something like 960x540) on the same TV and they look nearly as good as the original HD broadcasts. Obviously the torrents are both larger in size and technically illegal, but I have a DVR so I tend to tape shows and watch them later without commercials anyway.

By "can't be burned to DVD-R," I meant that there is no way to use a DVD-R disc to watch an iTMS video on an ordinary DVD player. Apple graciously allows that for music files and CD-Rs. Considering that an iTMS TV show season costs more in downloadable form than on DVD in many cases, that's a bit bothersome.

Re:Free on iTMS, too?

[Phroggy]

By "can't be burned to DVD-R," I meant that there is no way to use a DVD-R disc to watch an iTMS video on an ordinary DVD player. Apple graciously allows that for music files and CD-Rs.

It seems you are correct. I had assumed iDVD and iMovie would be able to open DRM'd videos, just like they can open DRM'd audio, but they won't do it.

Re:Great!

[texaport]

Worth paying extra so you never watch another commercial advertisement -- just like movies on Sony Betamax in the '80s, Time Warner cable in the '90s, and Disney DVDs from ABC in the new decade.

Commercial-free and uninterupted: Time to dust off the rabbit ears, and check out Public Television (available over the airwaves in every populated US region)

Great

[Sludge]

This is an excellent step. I, for one, will be watching Lost in this manner. I cancelled cable TV earlier this year, because I'm a busy person who doesn't need the cost overhead in my day. However, this will rope me back in, guaranteed.

Re:Great

[kevin_conaway]

I cancelled cable TV earlier this year, because I'm a busy person who doesn't need the cost overhead in my day. However, this will rope me back in, guaranteed.

I call shenanigans. Lost is on ABC which doesn't even need cable. If you're so "busy" and don't need the "cost overhead", it would seem silly to pay for broadband then have to wait around for it to download.

Re:Great

[I_Strahd]

I killed my cable as well. I get better reception with a pair of rabbit ears than I did for local channels on Comcrust.

Strahd

Re:Great

[dballanc]

I've done similar. Cancelled my Dish network subscription over 2 years ago. The 'cost overhead' was double - it was an easy timesink, and I found myself looking for something to watch more often than watching what I was looking for. The extra $ savings applied elsewhere tripled my Internet speed, which is something I appreciate far more.

I occasionally have friends record a show or mini-series, but really it's not missed much. I'd much rather download the shows I actually care about, then become a mindless TV controlled drone again.

Re:Great

[soft_guy]

You are making an assumption that he lives someplace where he can pick up ABC decently.

Re:Great

[CastrTroy]

Lost is on ABC which doesn't even need cable.

That really depends on where you live. If you live in the city, you probably don't need cable. But if you live in the country, or in Canada, then you need cable to get ABC.

I wonder what Apple's reaction is?

[XxtraLarGe]

I wonder how this will affect sales of the iTunes versions that Apple sells? They sell DH & Lost through the music store. I wonder if they had to get Steve's blessing before they did this, since he's now on Disney's board.

Re:I wonder what Apple's reaction is?

[Daniel_Staal]

It wouldn't suprise me if Steve talked them into it.

Unavoidable commercials? - What a crock!

[IgLou]

Oh c'mon! Unavoidable commercials? All the more reason to just tape what you want to watch on the VCR then you can fast forward all you want. I know, I know VCR's will somehow be obsolete and yada yada yada...

This is just lame. The funny thing is, if it was affordable and high enough in quality I'd be willing to buy certain shows by download. But then of course most shows that come out on DVD later on will have more material... ugh, seems like there is no easy alternative.

Re:Unavoidable commercials? - What a crock!

[Daniel_Staal]

So, do actions meet words here? All of these shows mentioned are avalible, without commericals, for $2 an episode from iTunes. Quality is lower than TV, true, but not that much.

Re:Unavoidable commercials? - What a crock!

[balsy2001]

come on. If you are sitting at your computer with a high speed internet conection up in another window is it really that hard to do something else for 30 seconds. I watch three rounds of the NCAA basketball tournament like this and never paid attention to a single commercial. The commercials won't be that bad, just go to the kitchen and get a snack or visit your favorite website. The real benefit here is that you can watch the show that you want on your own schedule for FREE. No paying those bastards at comcast anything for ON DEMAND.

Re:Unavoidable commercials? - What a crock!

[IgLou]

$2 to get the show commercial free? Absolutely, that beats a rental price or pay per view price... even at a reduced quality. I'd do that.

The point I was trying to make was that offering it for free with commericals that I can't avoid is pretty lame when I can record the broadcast and fast forward through the commercials (in essence for free).

Re:Unavoidable commercials? - What a crock!

[Daniel_Staal]

They have to make their investment back somehow. I'm actually encouraged: They now offer these shows on TV for free with commecials, on DVD (eventually) for pay without commercials, on iTunes for pay without commericals, and on this website for free with commercials. Sounds like they are trying all avenues to see what the consumers actually want.

Re:Unavoidable commercials? - What a crock!

[voorko02]

What if you didn't know you wanted to watch it? For example my girlfriend got hooked on watching Gray's Anatomy when we watched the post Superbowl episode. The problem was that this was the middle of the season so it means that she won't be able to find out what happened at the start of the season until the DVD gets released this summer. I think she'd happily watch a couple of commercials an episode to catch up now rather than wait until the summer.

For me the greatest thing about the DVR was being able to watch what I want when I want, not the commercial skipping ability. Thats great, but if I had to choose I'd take being able to watch Battlestar Galactica Saturday afternoon rather than Friday night, even if it meant that I had to surf the internet durring a few commercial breaks.

Re:Unavoidable commercials? - What a crock!

[Cro Magnon]

I can already watch what I want on my schedule without having to LISTEN TO A USED CAR SALESMAN SHOUT AT ME AT THE TOP OF HIS LUNGS!!!!! Okay, my Tivo isn't free, but it's well worth the cost TO AVOID THOSE STUPID IDIOTIC COMMERCIALS!!!

On the plus side

[core plexus]

Sometimes the adverts are the best part of the shows. Now, *some* people can rewind and rewatch those Victoria Secret, KY Warming Gel, exercise infomercials, and similar commercials over and over and over.

I just hope this doesn't include those lame locally-produced commercials, such as furniture, auto dealers, and the like.

--

New Face Found on Mars

yay! oh wait next day?

[crabpeople]

I was going to say yay! I can watch lost when it airs instead of the next day off of the torrents! Ill definately use this even with commercials!

Then i read:

"will allow web surfers to watch full episodes of programs such as Lost, Desperate Housewives, and others starting the morning after they air on ABC"

Hmm, so my high quality HDTV rips finish downloading at the same time their low quality flash/rm/wmv video files are "available" for streaming*, and they have commercials?

Sorry abc, your not quite there yet. good try though.

*i would never believe they would let me download and archive the copies. if thats true ill eat my hat.

Re:yay! oh wait next day?

[kevin_conaway]

Depending on your timezone, I have a hard time believing that you can get a high-def rip of a TV show much sooner than the morning after.

After a show finishes:

- Someone has to rip the show to whatever format necessary
- Upload that show somewhere fast. How big are these rips? Almost a gig I would imagine.
- You have to find said site and download the show or wait for it to get spread around p2p networks.


All in all, I think you're looking at either a couple of hours of sitting at your computer in the middle of the night or waiting until morning

Re:yay! oh wait next day?

[digidave]

His point was that they will both be out at the same time, but the torrent will be a high-quality HDTV rip while ABC will likely only have a lower quality streaming version.

ABC had the chance to be better than the pirates and they blew it. If all they did was make it available in DVD-R format at the same time the show was aired, people could begin downloading it that night and have it ready to watch later or the next day at their leisure. It would effectively kill P2P versions of those shows since you could get the official version sooner.

Re:yay! oh wait next day?

[soft_guy]

Everything you have described could easily be scripted.

Re:yay! oh wait next day?

[Anonymous Coward]

What? You don't download shows, do you? Otherwise you wouldn't say such nonsense. Do you think it's still 1998? Downloading shows is easy and prompt, provided you have a decent connection. Go to tehserver.us and hover over the dates to see the approximate times that the groups release rips. For the popular shows, most private torrent sites get them within minutes of being released by the major scene groups. For example, last night's Sopranos was on BitMeTV at 11:09 Eastern, an hour after airing finished. The filesize? A modest 350 MB.

Re:yay! oh wait next day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Often, torrents are available well BEFORE the show airs. The network will upload the show to their affiliates, via sat, which is unencrypted iirc. At this point, anyone with an appropriate dish can just get the show out of the air.

I got Stargate Atlantis episodes a full MONTH before they aired, and then there's Battlestar Galactica, which aired on Sky fm long enough that I watched the season finale before the series even started in the US.

Thank you, internet.

Misunderstanding?

[Spad]

Perhaps it's been taken out of context completely and what they actually meant is that *including* commercials as part of the download is unavoidable, not that you'll be prevented from skipping them.

Re:Great!

[Ana10g]

Totally agree. And, IMHO, the quality of the programming on Public Television is usually a lot better than that of commerical broadcasting. Shows such as Nova, for example, are informative, and offer you that extra 20 something minutes per hour of information that would otherwise go towards commericals.

Vs. MythTv

[omnifunctional]

This is probably ok for those whe don't get good TV signal over the air. For everyone else, there is MythTv. More functionality, no commercials.

Re:Great!

[grimwell]

Commercial-free and uninterupted: Time to dust off the rabbit ears, and check out Public Television (available over the airwaves in every populated US region)

Please remember to support your local PBS station... the only TV actually worth paying for.

PBS also has podcasts freely available.

Linux ? Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it support alternative platforms like Linux and OS X? The last few TV show sites have dropped the ball. AOL's In2TV won't even work under wine.

Re:Linux ? Mac?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell no it won't! What do you expect corporate Amerikkka to all of a sudden give a shit about Linux users? We're their enemies in their minds. Now Mac users on the other hand might get a bone thrown toward them. They willingly bend over for Steve Jobs' latest DRM schemes on the Ipod and Intel Macs. So, corporations love that. Which is nice.

Its Free!

[trogdor8667]

One thing no one has touched on is the fact that this is free. The article mentions that viewers can order the same shows via iTunes for $1.99 (no commercials), via OnDemand for $1 with no commericials, or for free via their website with commercials. Personally, I'd still go for the free version; I pay enough per month for my cable and DVR as it is.

Then again, ABC doesn't really have any shows that I'd actually be interested in this feature for. I do hope that NBC and CBS follow this lead, as well as Fox (for 24)

Re:Its Free!

[Lumpy]

or you can watch the top 20 shows in HD quality and without DRM for free from your favorite bittorrent tracker site.

Until they give me high quality I have zero interest.

Cue the people claiming I am STEALING from them by watching the bittorrents

Re:Its Free!

[geekoid]

Your action deprive the people who craeted the work money.

Logically, it can never be better then free, therefore this is a pathetic attempt to make yourself feel good when you cheat people.

Ads^2

[Rob T Firefly]

So I can go to their website, which will doubtless be full of paid banner ads, and sit through a show with other unskippable ads. If I call to complain, will they put me on hold where I can listen to a recording of more ads?

I've never used Google Video's paid service or iTunes, but unless I miss my guess the TV shows for sale there are commercial-free, with iTunes even letting you download it to your iPod.

Seems like ABC is straggling a bit when they should be playing catch-up. After all, the first legal song downloads would have been immediately laughed off the Internet had they stuck radio commercials in the middle of each track.

Re:Ads^2

[Anonymous Coward]

CSR: "Hello, this is Pat at ABC, how may I assist you?"

Rob: "I'd like to complain. To download your free shows, I am forced to go to your website, which has banner ads. Then when I watch the show, I am forced to watch commercials. What a rip!"

CSR: "I'll put your complaint in the something-for-nothing pile."

Re:Ads^2

[Duds]

Even if they were free?

And in fact, that's EXACTLY how mp3.com distributed some commercial stuff legally early in their life. They put an ad at the start.

You pay with ads, or you pay Apple $1.99, or you steal it.

Your call.

Re:Ads^2

[Rob T Firefly]

Or you set it to record and watch later, fast-forwarding through the ads. While I respect the willingness of the media to move with technology, it still bugs me if they try to cripple use of said tech to a less-friendly level than it was at 20 years ago.

Or maybe I'm just spoiled by adultswim.com's ad-free webcasts of episodes the Friday before their premiere.

Re:Ads^2

[Duds]

Indeed, but if you're smart enough to do that and paitient enough to wait you're probably not the target demographic for 95% of the ads anyway.

And if you're FFing rather than skipping you might still spot a logo and stop for a look.

It does occur to me though that if they're forcing their own player thay can disable FF during the ads.

It's Corporate Greed, nothing else.

[ThreePop]

The entire reason television commercials exist in the first place is to create revenue for a network, therefore making television programming free. iTunes is making you pay for that programming now, effectively making it "pay" television. Commercials should be omitted. How'd ya like it if HBO, Showtime, Starz, Cinemax, etc. suddenly started showing commercials but still expected the same, or higher, monthly fees? ABC is ripping us off and setting a new standard for corporate greed in order to keep their advertisers happy.

Re:It's Corporate Greed, nothing else.

[jaaronc]

RTFA -- "They can catch them when they first air or watch them online the day after for free, but with commercials. If they want to watch them on the go, individual episodes without ads are available from the iTunes Music Store for US$1.99 each..."

The version with commercials IS free, and the version that you pay for on iTunes has NO commercials. This is going to be a good thing.

Re:It's Corporate Greed, nothing else.

[brouski]

Umm, no. These are not pay for play shows off of iTunes. These are free (as in broadband) for the taking (streaming?)

Re:It's Corporate Greed, nothing else.

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I agree to a certain extent, why should we pay for cable AND watch the commercials too, but television shows are costing ten's of millions to make, and many of them are sad sad failures. I would rather watch some commercials that generate revenue to create both the good and bad television then to have to pay $500 a month for 100 commercial free channels that are still filled with lots of garbage and I can't possibly watch all the content anyways.

Also, ABC doesn't get a dime from your cable bill. Cable companies are making huge profits by charging you to view ABC in digital or HD. Only those specialty channels like HBO that you pay extra for get revenue from your cable bill. Again, I would prefer if MOST television was not a premium channel because I don't think 100 HBO like channels would survive or offer the same quality of content as HBO.

Do what I do. I never watch TV in real time anymore. I record all the shows I want to watch on my PVR, and this way I can fast forward through the commercials. It saves me time (up to 12 minutes per hour of programming), and I am not annoyed by all the advertising.

If you don't like commercials, then don't watch TV. Its almost hypocritical to complain about commercials but expect to still watch television for free or cheap. The two have gone hand in hand since the beginning. Pick up a book or rent movies or play video games if you want cheap commercial free entertainment.

Re:It's Corporate Greed, nothing else.

[Halo-]

Didn't cable TV originally start out without commercials too?

I should note that I was a deprived child, and didn't first get exposed to cable until the mid-90's, so I could be wrong...

I do know that Time-Warner (my provider) isn't exactly in dire financial straits, but my cable bill keeps going up, and the ratio of content to commercial keeps going down...

Re:It's Corporate Greed, nothing else.

[Baricom]

Also, ABC doesn't get a dime from your cable bill.

I hate to nitpick, but that's (probably) inaccurate. Almost all channels carried by cable get a chunk of the bill. It's true that premium channels like HBO, Cinemax, and so forth get a lot more, but even basic cable channels usually take between 10 cents and $2 per subscriber. For example, BusinessWeek reported in 2003 that ESPN charges an average of $1.93 per subscriber per month.

Now, ABC itself usually doesn't get paid by your cable company, but the local broadcast affiliate that carries ABC probably does. Federal law provides both "must carry" and "retransmission consent" provisions that cable companies have to abide by. In essence, a local broadcaster can try to negotiate with the cable company to permit transmission in exchange for a fee. If the cable company refuses to pay, the broadcaster has the choice to block the cable company from transmitting its signal, or to demand that it do so for free. Early this year, a dispute with an ABC affiliate caused the cable company to pull the station off the cable system at the station's request.

With these provisions, the amount of money a broadcaster can get from the cable company depends on how popular the station is. Local affiliates of the "big 5" networks usually have bargaining power to compel the cable companies to pay. Independent broadcasters and religious stations, on the other hand, usually opt for more viewers through asserting the "must carry" rule.

I agree with the rest of your post; I just wanted to point out these facts, which most people don't seem to know about.

You're joking, right?

[FatSean]

Disney is one of the most egreggious offenders WRT unskipable commercials at the head of their DVDs.

Whining

[szembek]

Enough with the whining about not being able to skip commercials. Can you skip commercials when you watch television? It's just a nice legal way to watch a show you missed. Of course they are going to try and make money on it!

Watch at work?

[Brit_in_the_USA]

I see a huge backlash from companies when they start catching their employees watching these shows at work.

An easy to use access system (a web page) will mean anyone will be able to find and watch them with no software install (p2p etc.). This could be hard for IT administrators to stamp out.

I gaze into my crystal ball....
....and see Slashdot headlines of "Study claims Billions of lost revenue weekly from staff watching streaming TV at work"

Re:Watch at work?

[Anonymous Coward]

It will just lower the traffic to Slashdot because it is already at "Billions of lost revenue weekly from staff reading Slashdot" :)

Re:Watch at work?

[smashr]

I wish I had the points to mod the parent up -- this is the first reasonably insightful comment in this thread as it did not contain complaints about commercials or complaints about complaints about commercials.

Re:Watch at work?

[Duds]

I can think of at least 5 ways to block abc.com in windows. I'm sure there's about eleventy billion in linux.

I can't believe many people need "abc.com" for work.

Re:Watch at work?

[The Cydonian]

Then again, YouTube and Google Video are already blocked at my workplace, so might be a moot point. :-)

About freakin' time

[gurps_npc]

I mean really, it has been how many years since the sued the canadian company for broadcasting their stuff on the internet?

Geeze louise

[TheSkepticalOptimist]

I don't know how many times I have heard people complaining about iTunes selling television shows. How many people are in an uproar because ABC is making money first from commericals aired during their shows on television AND by selling the show on iTMS. Guess what, they also sell their shows on DVD AND make money off syndication.

What is the purpose of your complaining?

First, you don't have to buy the shows on iTMS, most of you complaining probably don't even own an iPod let alone the iPod that works with this service.

Second, many people actually enjoy the shows that are being sold on iTMS, that is, they want to watch it more then once. I would jump on the bandwagon with you if iTMS sold shows for $1.99 per view, but you are buying a video file you can watch over again. It may not be within the same month, or year, but many people do enjoy watching a full season of TV over a few days or weeks.

Why is it that some people are so jealous or fanatical about companies that make money? Why bother to complain. If a company or entity forced you to contribute to their profit, then that is reason for complaining (i.e. the government and taxes or gas companies). But some corporation that sells television shows is really no target for the kind of criticism and whining people are doing. Your just wasting your breath and straining your fingers.

When someone complains about a product or service they have no intention of buying or participating in, then that is just moronic. It is a classic definition of an idiot.

Re:Geeze louise

[idesofmarch]

I don't know how many times I have heard people complaining about other people complaining about iTunes selling television shows. How many people are in an uproar because people complain about ABC making money first from commericals aired during their shows on television AND by selling the show on iTMS.

What is the purpose of your complaining about other people complaining?

First, you don't have to listen to the complaints.

Why is it that some people are so jealous or fanatical about people who complain about companies that make money? Why bother to complain about the complaints? If someone forced you to listen to their complains, then that is reason for complaining (i.e. the government complaining to you about your taxes). But some person complaining about corporation that sells television shows is really no target for the kind of criticism and whining people are doing. Your just wasting your breath and straining your fingers.

When someone complains about a person who complains about a product or service they have no intention of buying or participating in, then that is just moronic. It is a classic definition of an idiot.

Re:Geeze louise

[Snaller]

What is the purpose of your complaining?

Its called exercising ones freedom of speech.

Embraced iTunes, won't embrace iCommercials

[amichalo]

I have really embraced the iTunes TV shows and their $1.99 model to feed my iPod before a long flight or catch the episode I didn't Tivo because I stopped having cable because I could buy the limited TV I watch for just $1.99 an episode.

So I have to say, I like 22 minute episodes of The Office and Battle Star Galactica at 45 minutes. What I don't like? Commercials. What I HATE? Commercials I can't skip or do anything but wait through.

I'd much rather pay for a non-commercial version I can watch on my iPod (and therefore my TV) than a free versions that requires me to stare at my computer in disgust as Donald Trump attempts to sell me the newest 5 or 6 blade razor.

Re:Embraced iTunes, won't embrace iCommercials

[Lord Bitman]

well.. that makes one of you.
The revolution will be commercialized.

The question is...which ads?

[Comboman]

I've been saying TV stations should do this exact thing for years. You want to stop "piracy" of your shows? Put them online for free. Show the ads; we know you've gotta make money.

I'm sure they've wanted to do it for years. The problem has always been the local affiliates. The advertising on a primetime network show consists of two parts; national advertising (sold by the network), and local advertising (sold by the affiliates). Streaming it over the web essentially cuts out the local affiliates. I guess things have finally reached the point where the networks are more afraid of losing all their advertising (to both piracy and legitimate sources like paid downloads and DVD sales) then they are of pissing off the locals affiliates.

Re:The question is...which ads?

[timholman]

I'm sure they've wanted to do it for years. The problem has always been the local affiliates. The advertising on a primetime network show consists of two parts; national advertising (sold by the network), and local advertising (sold by the affiliates). Streaming it over the web essentially cuts out the local affiliates. I guess things have finally reached the point where the networks are more afraid of losing all their advertising (to both piracy and legitimate sources like paid downloads and DVD sales) then they are of pissing off the locals affiliates.

So you bring the local affiliates into the action. They supply localized commercials to the network; you specifiy your geographic location before downloading, and the network dynamically embeds the appropriate local content as you download the show. Not trivial, but certainly not impossible either. Of course, the affiliates have to supply that content, which is extra overhead for them, but it beats not being watched at all.

it's also a rube goldberg way to do it

[Anonymous Coward]

Or you could have legally just used a cheap vcr as in a 29.95$ model, they all have timing features now, and recorded the thing,legally time shifted it, and not wasted bandwith and not pirated off the web.

Myself, I'll be danged if I ever get that addicted to television shows that I have to jump through hoops and dodge the laws just to watch one, or listen to music like that either. I have yet to download an "illegal" tune or vid, see no reason to, I don't like the DRM and extended copyright BS, and neither will I give them any ammunition to make the laws even worse than they are now.

Re:it's also a rube goldberg way to do it

[Captain Splendid]

Good for you. Meanwhile, my VCR died over a year ago, and I'll be damned if I'm going to spend a cent buying another one, when I'm already paying a mint for broadband that delivers to me the same functionality.

DETAILS? Resolution? DRM?

[Danathar]

DETAILS...DETAILS....DETAILS

If it's another offering at 320x200 I could care less. The vendor that starts airing shows at DECENT resolutions (above 640x480) will have my $$$.

Even outside US or the same treatment from In2TV?

[CMBologna]

Couple of weeks ago the In2TV service was launched. There was a couple of shows that I really wanted to see but unfortunately I and some other users noticed it works in the US only (we were unsuccessful to fool the IP verification when the licence server need to authenticate the content that gets downloaded via the Hi-Q P2P client, any tip by the slashdot audience? my thought was to use a US based proxy when I'm about to play the content but I've tried many without any success). The issue is raised here http://messageboards.aol.com/aol/en_us/articles.ph p?boardId=560716&articleId=48&func=6&channel=Commu nity+Member+Forum&filterRead=false&filterHidden=tr ue&filterUnhidden=false.
Are there any more details if this service too will be US only?

In Other News.. ..

[Arwing]

Major Internet Service Providers started to claim that no company should profit from their network and demand extra charges from ABC.
The spokesperson for the major ISPs said "These major media companies, they are bleeding us dry with their contents! We have to make more money to survive"

We should be thanking ABC!

[FatSean]

I mean, so what if we don't want what they are selling? It's using new (10 year old) streaming technology! We're supposed to be happy about that, right?

Good News Everyone!

[cmacb]

So far I haven't had any luck though:

"wget http://www.abc.com/"

I'm just getting a lot of junk, no shows so far.

I hope they get this fixed soon!

Re:and give it to a friend?

[Lord Bitman]

yes.

What this means for BT TV?

[Lord_Dweomer]

While there are many here who use legal methods of watching TV shows...up until now it has basically been considered a grey area when it comes to downloading TV shows. Yes, you are skipping the commercials...but if you receive the channel normally, you're timeshifting.

Now that their online site will compete directly with .torrent sites, I wonder if we will start to see lawsuits and some serious crackdowns on the available TV torrent sites.

All I know is that this will not affect me downloading the show. The nice part about it will be ease of archiving without the huge wait from BT for older files though.

Muting the ads

[Fzz]

In Britain the commercials are often quite creative. I used to watch them. Often they were better than the programmes. But some time back, they started upping the volume on the commercials. That's just annoying, so now I mute them (too much trouble to adjust the volume). Stupid really - half decent commercials, but not watched anymore. Or alternatively, it provokes me into channel-skipping. When will they realise that subtle ads work best among the high-earning audience they want to reach?

Re:Muting the ads

[TheRaven64]

I'm a UKian who just got back from six weeks in the states, and you would be amazed at the quality of advertising over there. I thought the adverts we see (or, in my case, don't, since I haven't used my TV since the last season of Doctor Who ended) are bad, but the ones in the USA are truly dire. They are dumbed down beyond belief, and resort to things like repeating the company name and telephone number at the end three times. Oh, and you get the same one three or four times in an hour-long programme.

Re:Muting the ads

[Cro Magnon]

So, I gather it's different in the UK? I assumed that ads were teh suxor everywhere, like they are in the US.

Re:Muting the ads

[TheRaven64]

In the UK, most of the adverts at least try to be witty and entertaining (although a lot fail). Some of the best adverts are placed online and people actively download them and show their friends. Even the worst are not in the same league as the ones I saw in the US, which just have someone shouting 'BUY OUR PRODUCT! IT'S GOOD! THIS IS OUR PHONE NUMBER! CALL IT NOW! THIS IS THE NUMBER AGAIN! AND A THIRD TIME!'

Sopranos

[jaredmauch]

Something like that would likely work, or another popular show.

I also wonder if the streaming media will be sufficently available for people to watch on their microsoft mce or myth/freevo boxes.

Fox says it's legal to share a copy with a friend.

[Quevar]

Question and Answer from Fox's website at: http://www.fox.com/community/askfox/

8. What if I miss a show? Can I get VHS tapes, DVDs or electronic copies (via streaming or download) of FOX Network Primetime Shows sent to me?

ANSWER:
The FOX Network does not directly send out VHS tapes, DVDs or electronic copies of any of shows, specials or movies that currently air on the Network, but you may be able to catch a re-run or buy an earlier season of your favorite show on VHS or DVD from an online store or at your local retailer. Especially on a go-forward basis, you may have additional options for acquiring an electronic copy of a missed show either from your cable or satellite operator or from an online store.

Also, you could find a co-worker, friend, family or neighbor who may have made an analog tape or a digital copy (on a DVD or DVR) of the show off-the-air so they could watch it later. You could watch it with them (go on, invite yourself over!) or maybe they will let you borrow their tape or DVD if you promise to return it! Programs that have been recorded off the air cannot be sold or rented or forwarded to you via the internet without authorization from their copyright owner, so don't be fooled if someone offers to sell or rent you a copy they've made - it's an illegal transaction.

From what Fox says, it is legal to lend a copy to a friend, but not to sell or rent.

time to dump dial-up

[big dumb dog]

Will I have to dump my dial-up account to download Desperate Housewives?

please. stfu

[aixou]

Maybe if advertisers stopped making commercials that are crap, they wouldn't need to lock us out of fast forward during commercials.

You whiny bastard. Seriously. These companies can't do anything right, can they?
All I see here is people complaining and getting modded up for it. As far as I'm concerned this is a great step in a great direction.

I think what it boils down to is that most people here just want shit for free, and will say anything to pretend that they have some valid objection with the system and that it warrants theft (or "copyright infringement" for the pedants).

Free/opensource software falls victim to the same tripe -- people pretend that they stand by the ideologies but really just want stuff for free -- and use the ideology as a guise to pirate non-free software like photoshop or Windows.

bleh.

Re:please. stfu

[Suddenly_Dead]

Digital video recorders and VCRs do not constitute copyright infringement, or at least they don't in my country. I skip commercials because, as the complaining poster said, they're stupid. Most seem to try their hardest to annoy the hell out of me until I pay attention to them. That backfires though, since I just mute or skip them.

Do you actually enjoy being in the middle of watching a "dramatic" show like Battlestar Galactica or House and then suddenly being bombarded with a loud obnoxious song and dancing models in another Old Navy commercial?

Re:please. stfu

[Quikah]

I mostly agree that there is a large number of people here who just want stuff for free, but there is a valid complaint that too many commercials just plain suck.

I personally have rewound my TiVo to watch a commercial that looks interesting, usually a movie trailer or some other flashy thing which may catch my eye (usually T&A :P ). It is possible to make some clever commercials which are entertaining, for example I sometimes stop to watch the new VW GTI commercials because I think they are funny.

The real problem is that the commercials rarely change, they are the same thing over and over for months at a time. If they could possibly update the commercials on a weekly basis and keep them entertaining I would probably not be so hasty to fast forward through the commercial breaks. They should just make a 10 minute short then edit it into 30 seconds chunks, that is 20 commercials ready to go (go to the company site to see it in its entirety and buy their products).

Re:please. stfu

[aixou]

Do you actually enjoy being in the middle of watching a "dramatic" show like Battlestar Galactica or House and then suddenly being bombarded with a loud obnoxious song and dancing models in another Old Navy commercial?

Of course not. I think the answer to that problem is to make the content of commercials relevant to the viewer, similar to google's context sensitive ads. Perhaps a user could choose which type of advertisements they wish to see (e.g. "Science/Tech"). Of course, this assumes that advertisers would be willing to opt-in to such a service, but I doubt they'd complain too much if the system is were implemented properly.

The thing I take issue with is the way people will use any excuse possible to try to justify copyright infringement, when in reality, their objections aren't ideological but rather selfish and arbitrary.

Simple copyright-infringing-slashdotter logic:
If (not_exactly_how_I_want_it)
                stealing/copyright_infringement = ok!

Re:please. stfu

[TheRaven64]

I think what it boils down to is that most people here just want shit for free

I would like stuff for free, but only if there is a sustainable way of producing stuff for free. Failing that, I would like something reasonably priced. If I am going to be forced to watch adverts, then that is time when I consider myself to be working for someone else (i.e. the TV station, as their product). If they want me to watch 20 minutes of adverts for 40 minutes of entertainment, then the entertainment should be worth 20 minutes of my time, at my call-out rate. At this price, however, it is usually cheaper to buy the DVD boxed set of the entire season than watch one or two episodes.

If I could download an episode of a TV show for 50p-£1, then I would do that. As it is, I don't watch TV anymore - the only TV shows I watch are on rented DVDs, which work out at under 20p an episode - and so the stations are getting no money from me. Oh, and they should try to get them to me as soon as they are aired anywhere. Movie companies seem to have worked out that you will get a lot more piracy if you release in the UK six months after the US, but the TV industry still waits 6 months to show it on cable / satellite, then another 6 to show it on terrestrial, then another 6 to release it on DVD (by which time I've probably already seen hundreds of spoilers online, and am bored by the idea of the show, so I don't watch it).

Can companies do anything write? Yes, they can provide a service I am interested in buying. At which point, I will have no hesitation in letting them join in the deprive-me-of-my-disposable-income game. Until they do, they will get my scorn and derision, but none of my money. I won't 'use this as an excuse to pirate,' I will use it as an excuse to spend money elsewhere, or put it in a savings account.

Re:please. stfu

[Jherek Carnelian]

I think what it boils down to is that most people here just want shit for free, and will say anything to pretend that they have some valid objection with the system and that it warrants theft (or "copyright infringement" for the pedants).

Don't forget for one second that the studios and networks are ALREADY getting shinola for free. They just have the current system of laws to guarantee that they get money for nothing.

Once a show has completed production, any money the studio or network gets for airing or otherwise selling copies is money for nothing. The cost of airing a show or putting it out for download is marginally zero.

They are no better than the dotters that you complain about, except that they've bought the laws to back them up.

You might argue that they somehow deserve to get money for free because they took the risk of funding the production in the first place. That is inherently an anti-american, anti-free market position. Nobody deserves money just because they risked money. If it were otherwise, casinos would be bankrupted.

These guys need to get a new business model that does not depend on getting money for nothing. Until then, they and you, have got no business complaining that dotters want stuff for free when the current entertainment industry is completely built on getting as much cash as they possibly can for doing no work at all.

Re:please. stfu

[deacon]

Your "retort" just proves the parent's point:

The industry is out of touch with the consumer, is uninterested in changing their advertising model to better engauge the consumer, and is uninterested in any feedback the consumer might have regarding the consumers wants or needs.

stfu

We have free speech in this country. Get used to it.

Re:please. stfu

[Anonymous Coward]

All I see here is people complaining and getting modded up for it.

Oh stop your complaining.

Re:please. stfu

[rpdillon]

People want stuff for free because we have been conditioned to expect it and we know that it is possible.

Never, in the entire history of radio, has there been a situation where you were somehow prevented from listening only to a program and not the adverts that came with it. People grew up on the broadcast technology knowing that they could flip stations on a whim, usually to avoid the adverts. Radios come with preset buttons to make switching just that much easier.

Similarly with television. TVs have presets now, as well as "last channel" and picture-in-picture functions to allow you to flip quickly back to the program you were watching before the adverts started. TiVo and MythTV both allow (each in their way) commercial skipping.

What is my point? My point is that for 70 (or longer) years, as long as broadcast media has been around, people have found (perfectly legal) ways to avoid advertisements. So, as a result, people have come to expect that they will continue to be able to avoid advertisements. This is a reasonable expectation.

If we really want to be honest with ourselves, we have to recognize that advertising is as old as broadcast media, and was the original way to fund that media. The advertisers knew that their advertisements wouldn't reach all the viewers, and knew that even fewer would buy the product. The networks charged for advertising accordingly. This in no way means it is theft to skip commercials - it merely means that if you do, you are in the percentage of the audience that those adverts do not reach.

What about when everyone skips commercials? Well, then it is time to come up with a new business model. Face it: technology created the broadcast advertising business model, and technology will destroy it. The industry has to evolve to survive through those changes.

Oh, and with respect to your comment:

Free/opensource software falls victim to the same tripe -- people pretend that they stand by the ideologies but really just want stuff for free -- and use the ideology as a guise to pirate non-free software like photoshop or Windows.

That may be, but a lot of us actually stand by the ideologies and, amazingly, aren't pirating Windows and Photoshop. Heck, some of us actually donate real money to the organizations that support that free software. Who are you to judge?

Re:please. stfu

[HiThere]

It would actually be fairer to say "The companies don't choose to do anything right." That would be a true statement, as opposed to the one which you created.

That said, since their goals and mine are so different, I doubt whether they will ever come up with an offer that I find tempting...of course, they would also need different bait. I stopped watching TV decades ago because there wasn't anything worth watching. It's true that an excess of commercials drives up the cost of watching, but even without ads (or with minimal ads) they still didn't offer anything I would go out of my way to see...much less pay money to see. So if they wish to satisfy me (which they don't, as I wouldn't be a part of their audience), they would need to do it strictly on moral grounds.

Abuse of the legal system (and I count being covered by the DMCA as abuse...it's a threat, even if you don't use it) is an action I find immoral. Therefore any action they could take that would satisfy me would avoid being covered by the DMCA. Now strictly speaking that's not possible, but I would definitely require the avoidance of any "technical measures of copy protection" (I think I've got that quote right. I wouldn't require this because it's intrinsically immoral, it isn't, but in the current legal system it HAS BECOME immoral. I didn't buy the law, so don't blame me. I campaigned against it, but law it is, and therefore what used to be moral has become immoral.

Re:please. stfu

[Rob_Bryerton]

You really need to look up the following words:

Piracy
Theft

You do not know the definitions. You do not understand what they mean. You can call people pendantic, but the fact remains that you simply *do not* know what you're talking about. Do you know what propaganda means? I doubt it...

Re:please. stfu

[aixou]

Please tell me where I misused either of those words (and didn't make my knowledge of the "misuse" explicit...).

Re:please. stfu

[mlylecarlin]

Exactly.

I. Want. Stuff. For free.

I don't want commercials in my television, and I don't care whether that breaks the economic process by which television is made. I'd happily watch the few good shows, pirated, commercial free, while the entire industry falls apart, to be replaced by a license system like the BBC or a pay to own system like DVDs.

Not kidding. Really that's how it should go.

Re:please. stfu

[Anonymous Coward]

If they want me to watch 20 minutes of adverts for 40 minutes of entertainment, then the entertainment should be worth 20 minutes of my time, at my call-out rate. At this price, however, it is usually cheaper to buy the DVD boxed set of the entire season than watch one or two episodes.

Well if your time is so expensive, slashdot must cost you millions!

Re:please. stfu

[ratboy666]

I don't care. Really.

I watch TV at my leisure. Not many programs either. I confess an attraction to "American Idol". Which I record, and then skip commercials.

Of course, the program employs product placement. For Coke, maybe other stuff.

Coke can fund the show, I watch it. Fair.

Why not download? Remember, *I* have to be convinced to consume the TV. For that to happen, the TV must be compelling, and convenient.

Free? Generally, yes. I do rent some series (Sopranos), but if the program airs, I don't care to pay for it. Because the "industry" has trained me to expect that (40 years of commercial supported TV will do that).

Re:Great!

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Um, no ads on PBS? They are always plugging some company called "Viewers Like You."
But in all seriousness:
A: You support PBS if you pay US taxes.
B: PBS has ads- I have seen many car ads on there, they are just at the begining. And how many times have you heard the Phrase "ADM- Supermarket to the world"
C: I will be honest, I would rather have to endure the occasional commercial than the occasional Pledge Drive. Even though my PBS tote bag and umbrella get me all kinds of hippy ass, you know, the women with unshaven pits and legs. MMmmmmmmm!

This summer on ABC...

[Anonymous Coward]

The ABC sensation you've all been waitin... BUFFERING

Re:Its Free!...stop, theif!!!

[joe 155]

"Cue the people claiming I am STEALING from them by watching the bittorrents"

you're STEALING!... seriously, you are... I mean i can't identify the "property", nor when an "appropriation" happened, I can't tell you who it "belongs to" in the first place (since you own your own hard Drive), I can't see anyway in which you are "permanently depriving" an other person of something, nor do I think that an ordinary and reasonable person would consider it to be "dishonest"... but even though it fulfils none of the mens rea or actus reus of theft, it is definitely stealing, and that's wrong...

No - You can (FTFA)

[Pudusplat]

According to TFA:

Aside from being unable to avoid commercials, watching the programs will be similar to watching timeshifted content in that viewers will be able to pause, fast forward, and rewind.

So, it looks like you WILL be able to fast forward and rewind. Although, I'm sure they'll use a proprietary player that disables this function during commercials.

Re:No - You can (FTFA)

[simpleparadox]

or maybe it allows you to fast forward if you've rewound, like if you want to watch a scene again but are a couple of scenes ahead or something like that you can rewind then go back to where you've gotten to, without being able to skip commercials you haven't seen.

Everyone on here is missing the point!

[cualexander]

The average US consumer has no idea in the world what the hell Bittorrent is. If I mentioned it to my mom, she would be like, "What?"

The average US consumer doesn't have MythTV, DVR, HDTV Tuner or any other thing like that.

Yes, they are still very much fringe technologies. Most people don't want to pay the added fees.

This isn't competing with any of those methods. The Bittorrent method is illegal, so you can't really talk about competition there anyways.

The average person won't care what resolution it is in, whether they have commercials or not, or if it plays in Quicktime, Windows Media, Flash or some completely new obscure format.

All the average person wants is to watch the episode of LOST or Desperate Housewives that they missed.

This fills that void. And if they make more ad revenue, then good for them. They are a company that is intended to make money.

Quit whining that ABC isn't going to deliver a DVDR with the last nights episode on your doorstep the next morning and take what you can get.

Geez, you people are ridiculous!

Re:Everyone on here is missing the point!

[Anonymous Coward]

The bittorrent versions will be COMMERCIAL FREE!!! Downloading a torrent is still (barely) a bit 'complex' for the average computer no-nothing, but I'm sure future clients will make it easy for Grandma to get her piracy on! ;)

Re:Everyone on here is missing the point!

[tf23]

The Bittorrent method is illegal

Is it?

I'm being serious here. If I'm paying my local cable co to get extended (extended == over the air-available channels + normal basic addons - espn, scifi, etc) and I own a DVR (replayTV in my case) I can record the show at will. I can watch it whenever. I can skip the commercials if I choose.

So what about bittorrenting a show is illegal? That I have to share the bits that I've already downloaded with others who are trying to download? And they may not have legal access to that show? It would seem to me that downloading a show that I've paid to have access to already, because my kids deleted it from the DVR, or it screwed up the scheduling, or the power was out or I did something bad and God's punishing me so I can' get my weekly dose of crack, er, uh, 24 on fox.... well, you get the point. If I've already paid for it, I fail to see how it can be illegal for me to download it again.

As far as people downloading the bits from me - if they haven't paid for it, then they're breaking the law by downloading it.

Which is why, although I would love to watch the HBO Rome series, I don't download it tho I've seen it torrented. I don't subscribe (ie pay for) HBO.

If I did, and I missed an episode, I'd have no problem with grabbing it from a torrent.

of course you can skip commericials!

[corbettw]

Step 1) Start watching your show
Step 2) Pause in the first few seconds
Step 3) Wait (five to eight minutes for half hour shows, 10 to 15 for hour long)
Step 4) Start watching again, and fast forward through the commercials

By the time you reach the end of the show, you might have caught up to the commercial breaks, but most likely not.

Re:Its Free!...stop, theif!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

and you forget the fact it was 100% free and transmitted on Public frequencies to begin with.

but it's STEALING! and in some way TERRORISM!

Someone Gets IT!

[PacketScan]

Wow someone finally gets it..

Money, Money, Money

[Hyter]

Is it free?

I don't think so.

[Belial6]

Honestly, as with all security, this needs a cost benifit analysis. I suspect that if ABC were to offer all of their shows WITH commercials in an unrestricted free fashion, the majority of people would not bother spending the time and effort to look for illegal copies of shows on p2p networks. I suspect that most people would not even bother to keep a copy of the shows if they knew that they could always go get it again directly from the source. You also would see very few people downloading and cutting commercials themselves, as that would be a bigger inconveniance than just watching the commercials.

There will always be a certain percentage of people that will download and strip commercials, but as illicit demand drops, p2p becomes less effective. This means more ads watched, and more revenue. The Media Barons have been tripping over dollars to pick up dimes for a long time now. They will never stop copyright violation, but they could probably reduce it by removing the primary motivators.

As for what is being offered ABC...we will see how it turns out, but it sounds like a good step.

Re:I don't think so.

[Reziac]

I wouldn't mind the regular commercials in a good clean reliable ARCHIVABLE download. If I really gave a shit, I could always edit them out, but it'd be less bother to just go buy the DVDs.

Come to think of it, why not offer DVD subscriptions for popular shows, to be mailed out every other week?? (assuming two episodes per DVD) Or single DVDs at a higher price, but make the full-season subs cheap enough that most people will just do that.

However, back to ads -- there's another issue here: Advertisers pay on a PER AD AIRED basis. If the download can be "aired" NN-many times on your personal equipment, how does the network get paid for those NN-times that you are presumed to see the ads again? I suspect THAT is what they're worrying about. Whereas with a one-time stream, they can set up ad billing on the same basis as for any ordinary broadcast.

Re:I don't think so.

[geekoid]

Clearly they would add a clause to the contract stating the advertiser get paid per download.

Re:I don't think so.

[Reziac]

Yes, tho it's more complex than that, due to the fact that many ads age out of relevance. See other reply in this thread, where I mutter a bit more about that.

Fact is, the happier the advertisers are with the whole arrangement, and the more they're willing to pay, the more such content we'll be able to download, because what commercial TV *really* wants is those advertisers' dollars.

TV 2.0?!

[mattcoz]

This is the face of TV 2.0--embrace and extend! Oh great, first we had to put up with Web 2.0, and now we have TV 2.0?

Re:Quite

[Lord Bitman]

Am I the only one who doesnt mind commercials? I have the remarkable ability to ignore some things. I don't compulsively buy everything that's shoved in front of me. Commercials are targetted at whatever demographic is most likely to watch a show- if I don't like the commercials, I probably wont like the show that runs between them, either.

I am annoyed by all these torrent sites which strip out the commercials.. why not just not be a theif? I'm willing to watch commercials, I just dont want to be awake at all hours of the night for the priviledge.

What format?

[phorm]

I skimmed the article, and it didn't mention much about format. Since it's on iTunes I'll assume it to be apple-friendly, how about 'nix?

It would be nice if it were a consumer-friendly format that would allow me to watch it on my os-of-choice as well as allowing for it to be burned onto a regular DVD. After all, at a price ofUS$34.99 for a season's pass, you're getting pretty close to the cost of a boxed set (which, in addition to being fancier and a longer-term item, is also commercial-free).

Anyhow, whatever they plan it is a start. However, we're not giving them the finger here so much as indicating that some things should probably be given some deep thought (pricing/commercials model, timing, format). For most, though, it should satisfy... just as iTunes has done for many so far in the music arena.

4-8-15-16-23-42

[dbcad7]

Recently found Lost.. um..

I bittorrented (is it a verb ?) all the episodes from the begginning and watched them like a really long movie. In my opinion, a pretty cool show. It has been a little tough recently waiting to see where the heck they are going with it, but I highly reccommend someone to do what I did, start from the beginning, and watch em all.

btw.. the numbers are bad

Re:Fox says it's legal to share a copy with a frie

[Anonymous Coward]

you may be able to catch a re-run or buy an earlier season of your favorite show on VHS or DVD from an online store or at your local retailer.

Shit... the program I missed was only my second-favorite! I guess I'm screwed. :(

So buy ITMS and download torrents

[SuperKendall]

For $2, you get a poor-quality video file that can be played only on a limited number of computers with QuickTime/iTunes and only on an iPod (no other portable players).

I own a Mac and an iPod, but torrents completely trounce any paid content on quality and flexibility. At least the iTunes Music Store lets you burn your AACs to CD; by contrast, purchased video files can't be burned to DVD-R.

So pay $2 on iTunes, then download torrents and pretend that's what you paid for. Ethical conundrum solved, you get the quality you want at a price that's fair.

I agree it's annoying you can't burn iTunes video to DVD or CD.

Good move by ABC

[LucasMedaffy]

If we are going to see advertisements, which I think is perfectly fair for content given away for free, I much prefer to see them during "commercial breaks" rather than product placement. I'm noticing a lot more product placement (sometimes subtle, sometimes 'punch-me-in-the-face' obvious) these days, and I think it's probably due, in part, to the rise of PVRs and downloads. This is content that can't be stripped out, and even if a paid subscription model of shows comes out, will still be present.

I'm happy with this decision from ABC. I don't like ads (nobody does) and I'm sure there will be some repercussions to local advertising contracts, but it seems like a fair step forward.

Free as well. Awesome.

[Nightspirit]

I'd even pay $1 an episode if they didn't have commercials and were in HD. I know I can just skip them, but I don't mind paying to avoid that.

I already (know someone who) pirates battlestar galatica, stargate, and southpark (don't pay for cable). They might as well start making money (hopefully other companies such as the sci-fi channel will take note).

Windows only? Win and Mac only? What are the reqs?

[doodlebumm]

Okay, I use linux. Never boot my desktop to Windoze and only occasionally boot my laptop to Windoze (very rare, and usually only for a specific reason, then I go back to the one-true OS). So am I just using the wrong OS? Will their offerings lock me out because I won't have their "can't-skip-the-commercials" player? I would guess that it will be Windows ONLY, because Disney does everything they offer that way (f******, G******, s***** M********!!!!), so Mac, *nix, and *BSD would all be screwed.

Good job

[TACNailed]

Good job. You're heading in the right direction.

New Fancy Medium, Same Crappy Business Model

[retinaburn]

As I see it there are a few problems with standard tv:
1. Dictated when you watch it
You can of course solve this with a PVR, VCR, DVR, Download, etc.
2. Commercials
This is solved in some respects with the above solutions but each have their own problems. Which I am sure you can figure out on your own.

They have solved the first part of the problem, sort of. You can now watch it from any computer (that has the needed software installed, if any) at your convenience.

However they totally missed the boat on number 2.

Why not put the ads on the page itself? You will get more people watching the shows more often if the video doesn't have commercials. Plus you get the ads on the page for the entire duration of the video, or cycle them at will. You can also target ads based on ip, or registration information (since there will certainly be something to track users). Even better you could set up certain ads to show at certain times of the videos. Let the user click on the ad and open a window in the background for when they are done watching the video.

While I didn't try it out, I know that March Madness this year was broadcast with ads on the page, and the ability to view both live streaming and highlights, etc.

That being said the network isn't going to want to cause waves with their advertisers by trying to get them to think too hard which is probably why the offering is designed the way it is.

ABC

[zimus]

Now if there were only any shows on ABC that I'd be interested in watching...

If ONE guy yells "7pm!" through my speakers...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'll just get the rip.

It's the horrible commercials that ruin it for the rest of the industry.

a good move for ABC

[PMuse]

All programs will be shown in their entirety, including commercials which cannot be avoided.

That's fine as far as it goes, but what everyone wants to know is, will there be a certain amount of tolerance for going to the bathroom?

Re:You might have that wrong

[symbolic]

I think they are looking for ways to increase/maximize their revenue - testing the waters, as it were.

Why

[psydad]

Are people peeing all over themselves over this tripe?
Show me "real" content and I'll watch - commercials and everything - really this is a "non" issue.
I went to ABC, selected an episode of "Lost" and was shown - or I should say they tried to show me - 4 episodes of Desperate Housewives. WTF? If I cared that much about some crap, I would watch it. Keep it, keep it tightly clenched between your manly buttocks, Powered Toast Man.

Diversified Marketplace

[ScottCooperDotNet]

I'd be happy to pay more to avoid commercials entirely. My time is worth a few extra bucks, not to mention the higher-quality experience of an uninterrupted viewing.

We're at a point where established media (radio, newspapers) are oversaturated with ads and will slowly decline, especially with the "target demos" that have expendable cash. Check the growing millions that have satellite radio. Those listeners are lost to terrestrial radio as their churn rate is low.

Media PC?

[Ahnteis]

"but I'm not particularly interested in web-content that turns my PC into a small, lo-res television complete with 16 minutes of ads per hour."

If only someone could figure out a way to get that content from your PC onto your bigscreen TV.

That would probably take someone pretty nerdy to figure it out though. If only there were a website that attracted lots of "nerds" where you could ask questions and discuss things like that.

Re:Media PC?

[uglyduckling]

If only someone could figure out a way to get that content from your PC onto your bigscreen TV.

But it would still be low-res and so would look terrible on the bigscreen TV. That's not about to change because some 'nerd' works on the problem - the data stream from the website will look good in a quarter-screen window but will look terrible at 1280x1024 or taken from the PC's composite output onto a big TV.

What about markets outside US?

[MrKneebone]

What does this mean for other countries who receive these shows weeks or months after they air in the US? Wouldn't ABC's afilliated non-US networks have a problem with these shows being so legally freely available before they've had a chance to milk their advertising dollar. After they've already paid for the rights to broadcast the shows.

hope it'll play in VLC

[XO]

if it'll play in VLC, it should be pretty damn easy to undo the commercials, eh?

A method for trimming commercials...

[benow]

If you were to save the stream to disk, then run a black frame detector, the algo for trimming commercials is this:
find black frame, if another black is back or forward 30s,60s,90s +/-5s, then you're in a commercial block at black frame A. START=A, Scan back from START set reseting on black frame within preceeding 15s. END=A, scan forward finding black frames at 30s,60s,90s +/-5s, resetting END. Scan forward from END, resetting until no black frame in subsequent 15s. [START,END] is a commercial block. Repeat for other frames. Invert the blocks and join. Avidemux2 does this nicely.

The Networks have been drowning us in hair shampoo for far too long. There is far too much out there for them to expect people to deal with their insulting crap for much longer.

TIVO?

[swell]

I haven't seen TIVO mentioned yet.

Since around 1959, when I got my shiny new Norelco Carrycorder, I have been recording broadcasts to play back at my leisure. I can fast forward, rewind and with some systems even edit the content.

My Mac now does that for me. I record TV to my hard drive. Weekly shows are easily preprogrammed and a special show that I discover tonight can be recorded with a single click. I can watch live TV and pause, back up, and fast forward even as it is streaming onto my drive. I can put the TV in a corner of my monitor and continue typing messages to /.

The software allows me to edit those programs worth preserving--removing commercials and boring parts... Then I can save the edited file in a number of compressed formats.

I assume that many readers can do most of this with their TIVO or their computer. Don't know why it hasn't been mentioned.

Now why would I want this ABC service?

How do the price?

[Belial6]

"Advertisers pay on a PER AD AIRED basis. If the download can be "aired" NN-many times on your personal equipment, how does the network get paid for those NN-times that you are presumed to see the ads again?"

Easy. They have their driver take them to the magazine division, and ask them how they price for ads that might be seen once, or might be seen NN-many times. While they are at it, they ask them how they deal with preventing people from editing out all the ads in the magazine.

Re:How do the price?

[Reziac]

Treating it like print ads does seem reasonable -- take best guess of total eyeballs in thrall, pay up accordingly.

If I were a paying advertiser, I'd also want either a reduced rate for fall-off (ads becoming progressively more outdated), or the ability to insert fresh ads on an ongoing basis (which could probably be charged much closer to live-broadcast rates, so the content provider would be happy too -- more money!)

ad-skipping hack

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd chip in for a prize to whoever creates the best media player hack to accurately identify and skip over ads in files like these...

how about commercials before the show

[coolingfan]

I know these major TV broadcasting companies in South Korea have already been providing such service for the shows they create since several years back and what they have is this "mandatory" commercial session that the people must watch before they can watch the show. Intermediate commercials have always been annoying. There won't be any of these "skipping commercials" talk and everyone will be happy this way.

P2P and this is the "bleeding obvious"

[ItsIllak]

I guess these things take time, but for the past two years, this idea has been so glaringly obvious it's not funny. The networks have the opportunity, for the cost of seeding a torrent, to massively increase their advertising.

They could even concievably cover the international advertising market themselves by delivering different advertising into the network for each zone. They're the ones that hold all the aces, so the international networks that depend on the US content will have to roll over.

Of course, that's not what's going to happen is it? Instead they'll be failing to deliver content due to massive demand, refusing to deliver it outside their own borders, and crippling it in a million other ways so that you'll not be able to view it on anything but their own viewer (or something equally controlling).

What is the video producing system's obsession with knowing when I watch something? First through the cinema->rental->dvd->premium tv->regular tv release schedule of movies, and now with the drip feeding of TV series around the world...?

(In the UK by the way)

No thanks

[Snaller]

In a lame streaming format? No thanks, offer divx or svcd and then we'll talk.

Re:No thanks

[Anonymous Coward]

For the record I was able to go to their site using Firefox on my Linux box and was able to get the mms:// URL which mplayer was able to play from CLI. And if I wanted, I could trivially save the stream, and/or transcode it to whatever I desired.

You stfu

[Snaller]

This is the problem with slashdot noadays, a bunch of whiny intolerant kids modding junk up and insight down.

itunes pass - buying TV shows was AWFUL

[drDugan]

I bought the itunes pass for daily show and colbert report - paid $20

wanted to show my support for legal downloads of shows

the overall quality was poor, the download was slow, there were bugs, the player in mac itunes was AWFUL compared to VLC (mouth and sound were out of sync in 2 mins), the system forced me to reboot for the video to play correctly, and there was no one to contact about the problems - no human in the loop at all who would address my concerns... overall an experience I will not repeat for some time.

the alternative downloads are more reliable, free (beer and speech), illegal, but a hell of a lot better option

I'd rather download the illegal version - better on all my metrics - and send the $10 a month straight to John and Steven. Anyone got an address? I figure it would get me in more trouble if I started sending them checks :(

Re:itunes pass - buying TV shows was AWFUL

[geekoid]

What about the camera people? sound people? script writers? where are there checks?

Not that attractive compared to alternatives

[epeus]

I put a comparison table on my blog (slashcode strips table tags, or I'd copy it here, sorry.)
Overall, the options are awkward. I can see some interesting gaps there - if I could subscribe to DVDs by mail every fortnight or month, while the series is still airing, that would be attractive (much more attractive than US networks' scheduling, which seems designed to confuse and disappoint and lose the flow of plot).
The iTunes series subscription could be attractive, if it was closer to the quality you get from HD-ripped Bittorrent or DVD. Tom Coates was saying something similar recently.

The other missing piece follows on from my post about net video last week- what if the cable companies had a cache of shows for a while after airing, or let you retrieve them from each others' PVRs? As the smarter ones have very high speed networks in their served neigbourhoods, this could be very responsive.

Adult Swim

[Omniscient Ferret]

Another network's done a bit of this...

The Cartoon Network's been posting the Adult Swim shows online lately, available 24/7 rather than just Friday night like they had been. There are no commercials. It worked under mplayer for me, using, apparently, WMV9.

Compare vs Netflix

[maximthemagnificent]

Until the quality, features, and price are better than I can get renting the series DVD from Netflix, I couldn't care less.
I figure it costs me about $1/DVD to rent from netflix that makes the cost per episode around 25 to 50 cents, depending
on how many there are per disc. That's an awful lot less than the $2 per episode figure people are throwing around.

The time delay doesn't really concern me; after all, today's hot show is tomorrow's crappy rerun anyways. Special DVD features
are usually a waste of time, but they are an extra.

Maxim

RTMP is the key

[Anonymous Coward]

It's very easy. Encode the video in Flash and do a php call so the file name is never revealed - not even the url to the directory where the file *is* is revealed.

Sorry, you're right off the mark. Encoding the video in Flash (making an FLV file) does nothing special. People can download those and play those. They can see the HTTP requests the Flash player makes. You can't hide the filename, and PHP has nothing to do with it.

The secret sauce is the proprietary communication protocol called RTMP (Real-time Messaging Protocol) between the Flash player and the Flash server. The video isn't served up as a regular downloadable file, it's streamed using this protocol. It's unencrypted. If you parse the protocol correctly and take the video packets out of it, you get a regular FLV (Flash Video) that you can save off and play later.

RTMP is the method that Google Video, MyTube and others currently use to serve videos via Flash.

Until now, Macromedia were crowing about how this security through obscurity protects content producers. They're about to have a can of whoop-ass opened on them, as the RED5 team reverse-engineered the protocol - they've now done enough that they've released an open source Flash server that can serve up FLVs to the Flash player.

I can only imagine that it won't be long before someone publishes a stream ripper based on RED5's work.

Knock it off

[GuloGulo]

Bullshit, it's called being a whiny fuck.

If you were complaining about something important, I'd have your back.

But all your complaining (and in this thread YOU have done an assload of complaining) and your transparent attempts to make it a "free speech" issue are just dumb.

How many people don't have a DVR? Then this service is perfect for them, especially if they don't want to pay for anything. And you know that, you just like to whine.

But just in case you really ARE simply exercising your right to free speech, keep in mind, when fools like you go around abusing their rights, that makes life hard for everyone.

Stop bitching, and PLEASE stop acting like you're doing it out of patriotism or social responsibility.

Re:Knock it off

[Snaller]

Opponents of freedom of speech - like you - are always adding a ton of restrictions, many of which boil down to "you can't have it if you disagree with me". Well, though its freedom of speech wether or not you like the topic.

The other positive impact could be...

[s31523]

To force cable providers to be more competitive. I hope if ABC makes a big splash with this other networks and pay channels will follow. If key channels have online subscriptions, this will compete with cable TV. I hate having to pay $40 to Comcast just to get food network. If food network offered a chance to download episodes for $5/month subscription or somehting, I would be all over that.... Until Comcast raises there broadband access fee... ah well, you can never win I guess...

Re:Quite

[cayenne8]

"I am annoyed by all these torrent sites which strip out the commercials.. why not just not be a theif?"

Do you seriously consider NOT watching a commercial to be thievery? Where do you get this from? Does that mean I'm stealing if when I'm watching live tv, and the commercial comes on that I go out of the room and do something else I'm stealing content?? What about with 'timeshifting' devices? They've been ruled legal since the VCR. Am I guilty of theft if I fast forward or skip the commercials with my vcr, tivo or mythtv box?

Now..I might agree that downloading broadcasts off bittorrent is probably in a very dark grey area...with respect to copyright infringment...but, I don't see how you can seriously say skipping or deleting commercials is a crime. If you like to watch them..fine..no problem. But, there is no contractual obligation for a view to watch a commercial as a price for viewing publically broadcast content.

Re:Quite

[Lord Bitman]

Does it hurt your brain to twist it around into that kind of position?
If you strip commercials out of things and distribute those things to other people, you're a theif. This says nothing of legality. This says nothing of having commercials play while you ignore them. This in no way implies any contractual obligation. This is just about you being a theif. Torrents of other people's content are not a "grey area", they are solid black. You do it, I do it, that's beside the point. Don't pretend you're being morally ambiguous when you're stealing.